Y.M.C.A v. “TRUTH”

Grey River Argus, 24 November 1944, Page 3

Y.M.C.A v. “TRUTH”

RESIDENTS’ MEETING Notes of it Supplied to "Truth” SECRETARY CROSS-EXAMINED ON THEM P.A WELLINGTON, November 23. Further evidence from inmates was given to-day for Y.M.C.A. in the action against “Truth.” Dudley Ronald Wills, general secretary of Wellington Y.M.C.A. since 1943, is now under examination. He said that in addition.to the paid staff there were a large number of voluntary helpers. The kitchen and dining room stag numbered 12, and there were three housemaids. All members of the staff except the housemaids were connected with war work and lately there had been assistance from the Army which also provided personnel for other hostels.

P.A. WELLINGTON, November 23. At to-day’s hearing of the case in which the Y.M.C.A. is claiming £5OOO from “Truth”, for alleged libel, Dudley Wills, General Secretary of the Wellington Y.M.C.A., said that, throughout last year and early this year, tremendous difficulty had been experienced in obtaining and retaining housemaids and kitchen staff. He had seen the Matron scrubbing lavatories in residential quarters, cooking, washing dishes, scrubbing floors, and doing many other jobs she was not employed to do. There were at present S 3 civilian boarders in the main building. He would say, there was fair ventilation in those rooms that did not have their own direct ventilation. As Y.M.C.A. Secretary, he would most decidedly not be justified in closing those rooms, having regard to the housing position in Wellington. . , . Witness .said that the interior decoration of the building and the bed : rooms was not as good as be woula like. The place was clean, and was kept clean. He had done all he could to have it redecorated. There had been considerable expenditure on new furnishings, repairs, and improvements to premises. None of the shortcomings that he knew of at the Y.M.C.A. were in any way a disgrace to the founders’ ideals. He had striven to the utmost to maintain those ideals. Gambling on the premises was forbidden, but on one or two occasions he had seen servicemen playing for money in the lounge. He had stopped them. Some months ago the Matron told him she bad overheard one boy saying, on the telephone, that he had just won ten shillings from another boy. Witness made inquiries. He found that some of the boys gambled in a room upstairs. One boy admitted his guilt. He said he was responsible for organising whatever gambling went on. He acknowledged that, by breaking one of the rules of residence, he could not expect to remain a boarder. He left shortly afterwards. There had not been any continuous complaint of petty thefts. It was an epidemic. He 1 had tried to stop it. The statement that the lavatories were insanitary I was* untrue. ' They were untidy at times. He had tidied them up. At times they needed flushing, and he had attended to that; S’ o far as daily use of modern disinfectant made it possible, they were perfectly sanitary. Duckboards in the showers were scrubbed daily on both sides. Boys got 21 cooked meals, a large proportion of them meat meals, each week. They also had cooked meals. Some of them had meat for breakfast. Special provision was made for manual workers. Maids were instructed to report daily to the office any cases of boys remaining in bed because of sickness. The case of one boy, who had rheumatic fever, came to his notice, after the boy left the building. That was not unusual, because the Matron and staff often handled cases without referring them to witness. The boy worked at night. It was usual for him to be found m bed by the maid. Prior to the advent of the soldiers, the staff supervised the building. Doors at midnight. The residents who were going to be out late had to sign for a key. Otherwise they could not enter the building. The advent of the soldiers had changed this. Many soldiers arrived from trains, or elsewhere, at all hours. This led to the appointment, of a soldiers’ night porter. It would have been almost impossible to make other arrangements for the residents, because the practice was for everyone to be treated Mr H. F. O'Leary (to witness). “Were you present at the meeting of residents on the day that “Truth s article appeared? Witness: “Yes”. Mr O’Leary: “It lasted about two hours, and two resolutions were passed and carried?” Witness: “Yes”. . Mr O’Leary: “At the conclusion oi the meeting, signatures were taken on blank sheets of paper?”. Witness: “At the conclusion of the meeting signatures of th e attendance were taken on blank sheets of paper, and retained by me, with copies of resolutions passed. Later, the sheets of signatures were destroyed, with my notes. After I had redrafted the resolutions, they were later signed by some 80 residents.” Mr O’Leary: “Did you know that a youth had taken a detailed note, of the happenings of the meeting and 01 the resolutions passed?” Witness: “ I learned so, after the meeting. Mr O’Leary: “He is no Ipnger at the Y.M.C.A.?”

Witness: “No”. , Mr O’Leary: “Did he tell you he had seen a ‘Truth’ reporter, and had given a statement?” Witness: “I asked if it were true that he had handed notes of the meeting to a ‘Truth’ reporter, .and I think he said ‘Yes’”. Mr O’Leary.: “The youth left the Y.M.C.A. about three weeks ago? Witness: “Yes”. Mr O’Leary: “He was a night worker?” Witness': “Yes”. Mr O’Leary: “You went to his room just as he was gojng to bed after he came in?” Witness': “Yes”. Mr O’Leary: “Did you say: We have decided to clean the rats out ox the Y.M.C.A., and you can get out tonight?” , T Witness: “My, words were: 1 am cleaning out the Y.M.C.A. I am beginning with rats. You will go out Mr O’Leary: “Why did you turn that boy out at a few hours notice. Witness: “In the fim place. m de conditions of residence, I and other members of the staff, have power to refuse admission to anyone, o, to turn anyone out, without notice. In the second place, he had been an unsatisfactory boarder during the whole time I ha-' known him. I had mtena ed to ask'him to leave some months nreviously, but instead gave him wmSg.l considered that, since the ‘Truth’ article, he had been a turbing influence in the building. Mr O’Leary: “Why was he a rat? Witness- “That was- my opinion. . Mr O’Leary: “I suggest that there was another reason. Here was someone with an authentic note, of the meeting, and you were turning him “lt was not an authentic

note.” . ... Mr O’Leary: “Did you confer with Mr Nimmo, President of the Y.M.C.A., before taking this step to turn him out?” Witness: “I may have done. I spoke to some of the Board members.” Mr O’Leary: ‘‘This is the Wellington Young Men’s Christian Association?” Witness “Yes”. Mr O’Leary then put to the witness passages from the youth’s note of the meeting, quoting a number of remarks by Mr Nimmo. Some of these remarks witness denied to have been said. Others, he stated, were differently worded. Mr O’Leary “Mr Nimmo gave a religious address during the meeting Witness: “Mr Grigg, Residential Secretary, did, and Mr Nimmo referred to Mr Grigg’s words.” Mr O’Leary: “We have gone about half way through this report. You appreciate that you have agreed with a great deal of it?” Witness: “I have not agreed with the terms of it.” The Court adjourned till to-mor-row. ' i