ALLEGED LIBEL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 7 July 1926, Page 9

ALLEGED LIBEL

ECHO OF ELECTION. MR HALL SKELTON AND THE P.P.A. CLAIM FOR £SOOO DAMAGES. (by TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, July 7. M,\ Justice Stringer and a special jury are occupied in the Supreme Court hearing Sin action involving a claim for £SOOO damages by Allred Hall Sice It on, barrister and solicitor, against Henry Hastings Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for alleged libel in printing-printed matter during the election campaign in 1925. Sir John Findlay ancl Air. inder appeal* as counsel for plaintiff, and AD. G AY. Finlay and Air. Rogers-on for defendants . . The alleged libel was contained in a circular headed “Protestant Political Association,” and signed by Seabrook as president of the Koskill group, in which electorate the candidates were Air A'. H. Potter and Air. Had Skelton. It was stated in the circular that M’- Skelton’s declared ambition was to*’smash the P.P.A., and that this declaration would no doubt secuie the Roman Catholic vote.

The following is quoted from the circular ■ “It cannot be forgotten that Mr. Skelton acted as the representative of a party seeking to disintegrate the British Empire, and has publicly oulogised Aliehael Collins, who was the leader of a gang of atrocious murderers. and who was condemned to be hanged for crimes against the Empire Thoughtful men and women who recall such cannot, surely, choose as their representative a man who has manifested sympathy with those who, when the Empire was in the throes of a struggle for its life, were engaged within It in a policy of murder aimed to burden the prosecution of the Great War j V nd to secure its overthrow. Plaintiff contended that the circular, in fact, meant that lie was disloyal and in sympathy with murderers. A second cause of action concerned alleged matter in the New Zealand Sentinel, which plainaiff claimed set him out as being disloyal, that he was the representative of, and identified with, and in sympathy with, persons who held murder a sacred duty, and who were engaged in treasonable practices. ♦ On the first course of action plaintiff asked £2OOO, and on the second £3(Xa>, damages. , . . „ , The defence will be a denial oi publication ; that the words complained of were not intended to mean what v-as alleged, nor did they have any defamatory meaning; that the words complained of were not libel; that the words taken in their natural meaning (so far as they state facts) were true in substance and; fact; that the opinions or comment were fair, honest criticism in the public interest and without malice; and, further that publication was privileged, and that the plaintiff sustained no damage.