ALLEGED LIBEL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 24 June 1927, Page 9

ALLEGED LIBEL

N.Z. “EXPORTER” SUED. MR. TIMPANY’S ACTION. DAIRY CONTROL MATTERS. BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL TO THE STAR. WELLINGTON, June 24. The action, in which Thomas Marr Timpaniy is .suing the '‘New Zealand Dairy Produce.' Exporter” newspaper foy £2UtKJ damages for alleged libel, arising out of the' publication of certain articles, came before the Chief Justice, Sir Charles Skerrett, at .the Supreme Court to-day. Tlie ; case is attracting w idespre ad interest. Addressing the Court on behalf of the plaintiff. Sir John Findlay reviewed the statement .appearing in the “Exporter” in regai-d. to the election of Mr Timpany as representative of the Southern ward, and also' in regard to an allegation that Mr Timpany had disclosed certain information, stated to be confidential!, to the Press. Sir John stated that the, “Exporter” had alleged that Mr Timpany had deliberately misled the people of Southland, but since then t-hei “Exporter” had, through its columns, unreservedly withdrawn, the word deliberate. In respect of the Prime Minister's cablegram, Mr Timpany emphatically denied that he was the first to give these to the Press. Sir John stated‘that there was nothing to show that the cablegram wa« confidential or that it was even addressed to the hoard ; in fact, -Mir Timpany was sure that it was not addressed to the board, but that it came from another source altogether. Sir Jolm urged that the statements made by the “Exporter” in regard to Mr Timpany were of such a cailummous character that’ defence of fail' comment could not apply. ■Giving evidence, the plaintiff i.said that the statements made bv the “Exporter” in regard to his misleading people of Southland was qud.te unwarranted. Referring to the Prime Minister’s cablegram, witness said this was delivered at the board meeting by a messenger who, he believed, came from the office of the Minister of Agriculture. Each member of the board received a copy of the message. Detailing Iris interview with a reporter, Mr Timpany said that the reporter airpro ached him at Jiis just as fie was leaving for the boat. Tlie reporter seemed particularly anxious . to know what had happened at the meeting. The witness told the reporter that be was in a hurry to catch the boat, and that he did not think the reporter had any call on him for information. The reporter asked witness about the cablegram and appeared to have knowledge of its contents. Witness declined to divulge the full contents of the cable, but when be returned home and found that information had been released, lie gave a full copy of tlie cablegram to the two Invercargill papers, to far as he knew, there was no rule debarring members from giving out information to the Press. He had previously explained to the board that b yhis aiecoion pledges he was bound to give his electors any information that, would be of any .assistance to them. The board had asked him not to give out any vital information, and to ths he had half-heartedly agreed. Replying to Air liia.ir, witness, said that- lie did not know how many anti-controllers there were on the board.

“Don’t you know?” —“I have never interfered with any other member.” “Does Mr. Corrigan hold the same view as you?”—“1 don’t know; I would not go so far as to say that.” Witness said that he had informed the electors of Southland that he had gained hiis information in regard to daily matters at first-hand. Mr. lilair went on to read, extracts from reports of Mr Timpany’s speeches, when His Honour remarked: It seems to me that this case bids fair to assume the proportion of a State trial. Answering further questions, witness said that he had nothing to do with the Free Marketing League. Any information he received regarding exempted contracts came from his committee, made up of representatives, of various factories in the Southland district. Air Timpany was still in the witness’s box when the court adjourned.