VICTIMISATION ALLEGED

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 9 November 1933, Page 8

VICTIMISATION ALLEGED

CLAIM FOR £IOOO DAMAGES

BROADCAST LICENSE REFUSED. NOT SUITABLE PERSON COURT R,BJBCTS SUIT 'B> Telegraph—Press Association) AUCKLAND, Nov. 8. A claim for £IOOO damages against the Postmaster-General oil the ground of alleged defamation was made in the Supreme. Court to-day by Roy Keith, radio operator, Auckland. Counsel said Keith used to be on the air as operator of station IZQ and had been in the radio business eleven years. On May 3 ho received a letter (for which the Minister accepted responsibility) stating that on the ground that he was deemed to be an unsuitable person to bo entrusted with the operation of a broadcasting station the Minister had directed that no further broadcasting license be issued to him.

“We claim that this man has been victimised,*’- Said-counsel. “Tli6rd may be the question of privileges entering into the lottery, but- rwe claim to be able to- prove malice.” Ml- Justice Herd man: You admit qualified privilege. That puts on your shoulders the responsibility to prove malice or motive.

Counsel: If there has been a policy on the part of the departmental officers to take .such action as would put B stations out of existence I will prove ill-will. The plaintiff, .a® on© of the members, comes within the ill-will. His Honour: This is purely a personal action.

Counsel : Against the Minister or his agent. If the officers of the department, actuated by ill-will, spite or any motive, are determined to put a B station off the air I submit that would show malice on the part of the Minister or his officers.

SINISTER! SUGGESTION Counsel said the letter had a sinister suggestion and was a slur on Keith’s character. His means of livelihood had been taken away. Keith had been pestered iby the department since he began operating, and his correspondence had been interfered with. Rtestriotions had been placed on him, but not on other operators. His Honour: There may have been some special reason for it. Counsel for the Crown objected to the attempt to discuss the conduct of other stations, and the judge said the letters which passed between Keith and the department could (be read if they showed spa/te or malice. He asked what letters indicated malice. Keith’s counsel replied: Those saying that this man could not do certain things while other stations were doing them. Keith in evidence said that since he commenced broadcasting at Auckland in U)2o bis station ’had- been known as Keith’s' Radio Shack. In 1931 he shifted from Karangahape Road to the premises of the Atwater Pift.no Company. Mr Dickson : I think you were suspended in 1931 ?—Yes, for 16 days, allegedly for announcing that records were supplied to me by a gramophone concern and mentioning my trade name Keith’s Radio Shack. In connection with youir trade name had other stations been mentioning it?—Yes,, before my suspension.

THREAT BY INSPECTOR Keith added he had had a conversation with Mr Robins, radio inspector, who said 1 he would have him put off the air. About that time, December, 1930, he wrote to Wellington complaining of pinpricking. In March, 1932, he entered into an arrangement with the Atwater Piano Company, from whose premises he broadcast. This arrangement was later discontinued. Mr Dickson: Then you carried on with a number of difficulties and trials until you were suspended in May, 1933.—Yes, a.t the Solwyn Business and Technical College, Civic Square. The witness continued that after he had been there two mouths he received a complaint that he had been broadcasting under this name whereas the department said he should have done so as Civic House, Civic Square. He ■(intended that the regulations entitled I him to give his full name and address. Regarding the second complaint witness said it related to the broadcasting of records relating to a film sponsored bv the Plaza Theatre. At the same I time Station IZR had a. landline laid I to the Civic and National-,Theatres and was broadcasting parts of the film. On March 29 he wrote stating lie would relay if the department -preferred l it. Mr Dickson: And What was the reply?—They didn’t reply to the suggestion in connection with a landline; they only said some people were allowed to do things which others wore not. Mr Dickson: Have you had advertising withdrawn from your station ? Yes, because I could not advertise in the same way as other stations were doing. His Honour held there was no ease to go to the jury and gave judgment lor the defendant.