£2OOO LIBEL CLAIM

Grey River Argus, 18 February 1944, Page 6

£2OOO LIBEL CLAIM

BY MR F. LANGSTONE, M.F. Succeeds Against Wellington “Post’ FOR PUBLICATION OF CRITIC’S' INCORRECT ALLEGATION WELLINGTON, Feb. 17. . | Frank Langstone, M.P. for Waij marino, claimed £2OOO damages m the Supreme Court to-day from Blundell Bros., Ltd., proprietors ot the “Evening Post,” alleging that he had been much injured m his credit and reputation and brought ?hp public odium and contempt by tne publication in the “Evening Post of September 17, a lrn st ment attributed, to R. dependent candidate for Wellingto North in the General Election, that he had been recalled from Canada. Plaintiff, a former Minister of the Crown and High Commissioner for New Zealand in Canada, in the statement of claim bases. the action on the following words quoted from the “Post”: “Mr Langstone was very annoyed at being recalled from Canada ” said Mr R. Malcolm, Independent, in an address last evening, “but I happen to know why he was recalled, and if I were to tell you the facts you would agree with me that this was the proper thing to do. Even a Labour Government could not do otherwise.” It is alleged the words meant, or were understood to mean, that plaintiff during his term of office as High Commissioner had been guilty of such misconduct as to necessitate recall from that office by the Labour Govetnment and that he had in fact been so recalled. The defence denied os defamation, and said that if the words published had any meartrng at all defamatory of the plaintiff, a sufficient public apoiogy was published on September 21. In its statement the defence denies the allegations, and adds: On representations having been made that plaintiff had not been recalled from Canada “The Post” published the following: “The statement was printed by ‘The Post’ without perception of error in the use of the word ‘recall.’ The fact that Mi ■Langstone resigned was published in ‘The Post’ at the time, and has been frequently repeated in reports or debates on the question, We regret, nevertheless, that publicity should have been given to any statement conveying a different impression.” . , The case is before Judge Blair and a jury of twelve. Mr G. G. Watson, with him Mr W. P. Shorland, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr H. lO’Leary, K.C., with him Mr H. E. Evans, are for the defendant. Mr Watson, for the plaintiff, said the case was one of very great importance to the parties concerned., It would be submitted that the libel was a very serious one, having very serious consequences. Plaintilt had brought the case because of his right to have his character vindicated, irrespective of creed, or political belief, or political party, if the jury thought that it had been wrongly assailed. Mr Watson referred to the plaintiff’s long .association with and prominence in the Labour Party. The position of High Commissioner for New Zealand to Canada was one of high importance, and one which anybody could be proud to hold. Mr Langstone had resigned the post of his own choice and of his own free will, as the result of a grievance, which it. would be unnecessary to go into in the present case, ann which he felt he had concerning his appointment to the Washington Legation. It did not matter whether his grievance: was well-founded or ill-founded,' whether he was right or wrong, or whether he was wise or foolish in resigning the post. The fact of paramount importance was that he freely ann voluntarily resigned the ■position. On his return to . New Zealand, he resigned his position .as a Minister of the Crown, but did not resign from Parliament or from the Labour Party. He successfully contested his old seat, Waimarino, and the article complained of appeared while he was in the middle of his campaign, .Counsel submitted that there had been really two libels—one of the statement that the plaintiff had been recalled, and the other the words attributed to Malcolm that followed that statement. Counsel also suggested to the jury that the measures taken by the defendant company following Mr Langstone’s original complaint had been inadequate in the circumstances. In evidence, Langstone said that! on September 5, 1942, the Prime Minister visited Ottawa. Witness discharged all his official duties. Afterwards he told Mr Fraser, in the latter’s hotel room, that, as a result of the appointment to Washington, he was not to continue at Ottawa, and would resign. On September 7, he cabled his resignation to the Acting-Prime Minister, Mr Sullivan. The resignation was accepted about the middle of October. On his return to New Zealand, witness attended a Cabinet meeting for the purpose of resigning his Ministerial rank. He did not resign from the Labour Party, from Parliament, or from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Witness said that when he saw the statement complained of, he took a very serious view of it, especially the suggestion that there was something of a very serious nature that would justify his recall. There was no truth whatever in the statement that he had been recalled. Mr Watson: Is there any truth in the suggestion that there might be any facts whatever that would force the Labour Government to recall you from office. Langstone: No.

Cross-exam'ined, Dangstone said that politicians gave pretty hard knocks, and expected pretty hard knocks, hut never under the belt. He han received many hard knocks, and had never complained. The Press had a public responsibility as a purveyor of news to the public, and received very large concessions from the Crown because of the service .it gave. He agreed that politicians looker to the Press not only for their own publicity, buti also to hear what their opponents were saying.

Mr O’Leary: Actually assuming that Malcolm did say what he is reported to have said, and that it was not published in “The Post” you may never have heard it? Langstone: Quite true. Mr O’Leary: I suppose you will agree that a whispering campaign against a politic’an is infinitely worse than coming out into the open ann making an allegation. Langstone: Oh, I would not admit that.

Mr O’Leary quoted some other election notes appearing in the same issue of “The Post,” and suggested that they were a heterogeneous cdllect’on, including, as they did. reference to the Tory press and “somersaulting” members of Parlia-

ment. ■ Langstone said there was only one statement that was libellous, that al'legine that he had been recalled. In his view, that statement meant, and was understood to mean, that he had been guilty of misconduct. He had not used the word misconduct in telegram to Malcolm, but that w.as implied. The suggestion of misconduct had never been lost sight