DAMAGES AWARDED

Grey River Argus, 5 February 1930, Page 3

DAMAGES AWARDED

Blackball Miner CLAIM AGAINST COMMUNIST PAPER. Yesterday at the Greymouth Magi strate’s Court* a claim for £6O, as damages, was made by the Blackball miner, William Ba kierstone (former Secretary of the Blackball Miners’ Union and of the West Coast Miner 5 ’ Council), against A. F. Marshall of Wellington, as'printer, publisher and proprietor of “The .Red Worker” newspaper, a Communist Party juornal, published at Wellington, for alleged libel. The ease had previously been adjourned from December 10th. Mr W. J. McCarthy appeared for d fendant, and Mr W. J. Joyce appeared for the plaintiff, who sought to recover £6O damages for the alleged libel. In his statement of claim, he set out (I) That on July Ist* 1929, and for years previously thereto, and at the time mentioned in the allegations against plaintiff, and contained in the newspaper, plaintiff was secretary of the West Coast Miners’ District Council. and a prominent official in various miners’ unions and industrial bodies connected with the coal-mining industry; (2) that the defendant on July Ist. 1929, and prior thereto, was the printer and publisher of “The R«d Worker,” having a largo circulation in Greymouth and district; (3) that defendant published the following words concerning the plaintiff: At the nego tiations for a- new agreement for the West Coast miners, the owners pressed their attack still further. Although pledged to demand a wages increase, the leaders, led l?y Balderstone sold out to the owners. Not only did they forget the demanded increase, but they agreed to the inclusion of the infamous Clause 21. Fought against by iso lated mines, and the fight still going on. the National Union has made no attempt to use the fighting strength of i the whole organisation to combat this clause. Encouraged by their successes, i the owners then attacked the militants at Blackball. Using Balderstone as a foil, half the men employed were sacked. and speeding up hns ! taken place. Al] this, with one or two disputes in the North Island, has led to the Shag Point lockout.” (4) That by the. said words, defendant meant and intended that plaintiff was disloyal to the coal miners’ unions, that he. had accepted bribes or payments from the coal 'mine owners in contravention of the lines of the coal miners’ unions and was guilty of dishonourable dealings, and was unfit to be a member of any such union, and/or to hold any position or office therein; (5) that the publication was false, and malicious; (6) that in consequence the plaintiff had been injured in his reputation and credit; (7) wherefore the plaintiff claims th? sum of £6O by way of damages. In opening the case Mr Joyce the alleged libel was published in a copy of the paper called the “Red Worker” dated July 1, 1929. The paper was printed and published in Welling ton. Balderstone was Secretary of varous organisations and had held other positions 4 in connection with industrial matters since he had arrived in New Zealand. He had always been respected. It was rather significant that ns soon as there was a sign of trouble that the publisher took his name away. The affidavit showed Marshall to be the publisher at the time in question, the affidavit being signed in June, 1929. In August how- ( ever the affidavit was in Robert’s' name, who had slipped in while Marshall had slipped out. The article was one of those intended not only ro -harass but also to injure the object of it. It meant not only that Balderstone had brought the action to make the defendants prove their statements and to vindicate himself. The amount of the claim avould barely pay expenses.

Plaintiff in evidence stated that ' the paper was circulated throughout the industrial portions of New Zealand and Australia, and he saw it - every month. He did not know Marshall personally. There was no trurn contained in the article about himself, and it was broadcast to bring the miners and owners in contact. He had brought the action to show the publishers they could not make sucn statements without being challenged. He could hold no official position until the matter was cleaned up. To. Mr McCarthy: The paper had been in -existence for about four year 9, and had a circulation of about 2000. He did not hold any official position at the present time in any union, but had been Secretary of the Blackball Miners’ Union for 12 years, and Secretary of the District Council for seven years. He had not stood for office at the last ballots. Early in May 1928 there had been a conference between the miners and employers anent the new agreement, 'i L which he had attended on behalf of ( his Union. Before the Conference, the different Unions! submitted their remits to the District Council. The latter body took those it considered of use and rejected others, and presented them at the Conference. The main points at isuo at the Conference were the 7{. per cent wage increase, and clause 21, dealing with the sharing of work. The final resul was that the original agreement was carried on with, together with some modifications. After the Conference a report was remitted back to the Unions' and 4 accepted. There had been some dissension when the Blackball Coal Coy. had decided to run on single shift as the mine was not paying. In his capacity as Secretary he had tried to get the Company to share the work, and finally two proposals were put before the members of the Union. (1) That married men and single men with dependents should have prefer ence, and. (2) that work be shared. The first proposal had been carried. Some superficial opposition bad come from the Communist section.

Mr McCarthy: You are recognised as one of the miners’ leaders, aren’tyou ? Plaintiff replied that he was merely 'the secretary, and had always had a

pres'dent over him. He had come in for some engineered criticism, but th'* wad not worried him. He would deny being asked by the National Council to attend meetings on the- West Coast/ Ho also denied that the Millerton Union had passed a vote of censure on him and called for his resignation. Mr McCarthy then read a . letter I from the Millerton Union to plaintiff recording a vote of censure and asking for his resignation. Continuing plaintiff said ho had never refused to attend meetings, but at the time it was not convenient for him to Ro so. He had never been asked to explain anything. He had attended a meeting at Dobson, where -t disturbance had been caused by a min ority section of Communists.

Mr McCarthy: You wore booed out of the hall. The Miners’ Union are. not al] composed of Communists. Dealing with a vote of censure passed on him, plaintiff stated that this had been passed because evidence he had given had not suited a certain section. The miners had not lost confidence in him, and he had obtained a bigger majority than any other Secretary ever had. He did not go to the ballot on the last occasion because he wag sick of it and had had enough. Mr McCarthy: They had enough of you.

' Plaintiff: Nothing of the sort. I Asked whj» he had not written to the Red Worker, plaintiff said it would be of no use .as the paper simply published matter that suited it. He had given the publishers a chance to prove or retract, the statements. Mr McCarthy: The term “sold out” is common in mining communities, isn’t it? Plaintiff replied that he had never heard it used. Mr McCarthy: It means simply that the delegates have failed to carry out their purpose. Mr Joyce: The sooner they knock it off the better. Plaintiff said that ke. took it to imply a. slur on a man’s character. He proceeded to relate the time spent in trying to have clause 21 remodelled to the delegates’ satisfaction, it not being worded to lheir satisfaction. The delegate- had decided to refer it back to the. Union for ratification, and certain minority had “kicked up.” The vote of censure passed on him by the National Council was the work of four of the members who had declare I a vendetta against him. and there wes no remit to warrant it. A motion was afterwards passed that no vote of censure could be recorded until the person concerned had the opportunity of defending himself.

Mi McCarthy said he proposed tc call two witnesses for the defence. Re

forcing to the conference, he said thar the Unions had given the delegates remits, and they were not passed, with the result that the miners had lost confidence in the delegates. The Unions had always adopted the practice of sharing work when there was a shortage of labour, but this had not been done at Blackball last year, and censure had been levelled particularly at Balderstone. Several Unions had pass ed votes of no confidence, and demandhd his resignation. The article concerned did not imply that plaintiff had received any bribe, but purely that ho had failed in his duties.

Robert Adam a. member of the Millerton Miners’ Union, giving evidence for the defence, stated the two principal remits at the 1928 conference were the 7i per cent, wages increase an I the abolition of clause 21. His Union got a. report from their delegates, which let them know that no serious attempt had been made to get the < per cent, increase, A certain section wanted to make a stand, but their delegate claimed that Balderstone had 'persuaded a. certain number of delegates to Jet the clause go by. In regard to clause 21, Millerton for some months refused to sign the. remit if th? clause still held. The clause had caused dissension all over the Coast. The principle of sharing work was one that the miners always stood for, and it had been adopted everywhere except a I Blackball. Witness stated that the majority of the Unions alleged that Balderstone was the cause of the principle being dropped. Millerton Union had passed a vote of censure, and also demanded Balderstone’s resignation. He had 30 odd years!’ mining experience in the Old Country and New Zealand, and the term “sold out” was an expression used when the men were not satisfied if the leaders had not carried out their instructions. It did not convoy the meaning that, the delegates had been bought or bribed. He thought that the average man was of the opinion that Balderstone would be pliable to the employers. Practically

every Union had passed votes of cen Sure.

To Mr Joyce: He was not in a. position to dtate whether the majority of the readers of the Red Worker were intelligent. The- ordinary man reading it might think a bribe was suggested. Air Joyce: Then it wants a peculiar class of intelligence to read it?

Mr Joyce then detailed some of the work done by plaintiff in the interests mf the minors, and stated that the agreement had been accepted by a majority of some 400 votes.

The next witness was Thomas Morphy, checkweighman at the Dobsou Aline, and a member of the Grey Valley Miners 1 Union. He remembered the dispute at Blackball and the attitude adopted by plaintiff. The latter had a debate with A. ATcLaga.n an i after it a vote of censure had been passed on plaintiff’, who at one meeting had behaved anything like a gentleman. As to the dropping of share work at Blackball, the Dobson men reckoned that Ba.lderstone had engineered it. Some of the Blackball men ‘had told witness that plaintiff had tried to get rid of them. Eventually they had to go. The words “sold out” were a common expression in the Old Country and Now Zealand, and rhe ordinary meaning was that when delegates wont to a conference and failed to carry out their instructions on certain the men lost confidence. It was not meant that bribery had taken place. The circulation of the paper waa not very large. Witness was a subscriber, but was not in any way a Communist, and the Communists at Dobson did not “rule the

roost. ’ ’ To Air Joyce: He had never held any official position. The majority of rhe readers of the Red Worker would be intelligent men. He did not hold the opinion that Balderstone. had received any bribe. When the proposal came before Dobson, they unanimously favoured the agreement. To Air McCarthy: The agreement was not adopted until some months afMAGISTRATE ’ S DECISION. The S.M:, in delivering hirf decision, fated that a proper interpretation had to be placed on the wording “that Although pledged to demand A wages increase, the leaders, led by Balder stone sold out to the owners.” The question "was whether such a. statement was libellous or not. The defence held that the words “sold out” were com monly used to decide what moaning would be given to the words by an ordinary intelligent member of the public. WoulJ he infer that il sug posted that the leaders had turn*4 •traitor to the mon, and for a uonsidoration or benefit to themselves had failed to carry out the wishes of Iho men. ‘‘My own opinion is that thev are capable of only one interpretation They suggest that there had been :• breach of trust, and a dishonourable act had been done and the representatives of the men had betrayed their trust for some benefit, not necessarily an immediate one. I certainly think Hie words are libellous, and plaintiff is entitled to damages,” said his’ Wor ship. The question then arose as to what was a reasonable amount. Plaintiff claimed £6O. Was that a big sum to assess his reputation at? Such sum was named as a reasonable amount L cover only the expense plaintiff would I be put to, and the Magistrate eonside.c l it a modest claim. Plaintiff was 1 entitled to the full amount claimed; .£6O, with solicitor’s fee £4 3s, witness’ expenses 19s 3d, and Court costs £2 13s, and judgment was entered accordingly.