LIBEL ACTION FAILS

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 7 November 1935, Page 7

LIBEL ACTION FAILS

JURY’S MAJORITY VERDICT ARTICLE IN AUCKLAND PAPER QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION

(By Telegraph—Press' Association;. AUCKLAND. Nov. 6

The action in which William McLaren, former president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, claimed £SOO for alleged libel in the publication “Why?” rising out of the Auckland mayoral election in May was concluded before Mr J usticc Lallan and a jury in the Supreme Court to-day. The defendants, for whom judgment was given, were A. E. Robinson as editor* of the publication “Farming First, Ltd..” as proprietors, and the Queen City Press as printers. Messrs Haigh and Henry appeared for McLaren, Messrs Goulding and Sexton conducting the defence. Addressing the jury, Mr Goulding said tho jury must be satisfied that the statements complained of referred to McLaren. The defence was that the article was not defamatory in any part and was not written concerning McLaren. If the jury believed tho statements applied to McLaren there was the defence of justification in that the statements were true and a further defence of fair comment could ho found.

Newspapers were entitled to criticise men in public office. Mhile comment might be derogatory it did not follow that it might not lie fair. COUNSEL’S CONTENTION.

Mr Haigh said no writer could escape judgment for libel because the offence could not be pinned down to particular words or sentences. He suggested that “Why?” contained a gross libel against Mr Davis and t.ba article showed the type of man Robinson was in trying to besmirch his opponents, in this ease Mr Davis, a man with money. Mr Haigli asked whether the article conveyed to reasonable people the impression that the Labour people were putting forward Mr Sayegh as candidate for Mayor instead of Mr H. G. R. Mason so that Mr Davis could win. I hat would be deceit iug the rajik and file of the party and would mean disloyalty and secicb treachery on the part of the leaders, among whom it was contended that McLaren could be placed. Mr Haigli thought the impression of the article was that of a. “sinister conspiracy between Davis and 1 lie Labour leaders,” and to support the suggestion that McLaren was hand in glove with Davis, the incident regarding the bailing of the men arrested in connection with the free speech council meeting in Beresford Street, Newton, was introduced. His Honour said the case was of considerable importance to those concerned. According to authorities, a statement was none the less defamatory because it was not intended to be so. It would be only a careless, perverse or . uncharitable reading of the article which could cause any suggestion of bribery of McLaren to be interpreted, and even libellers . Mere not responsible for perverse misconstruction of what they had written. His Honour *said a further submission for McLaren was that the aiticle contained an aceustation of treachery on the part of McLaren toward Ins own people, the watersiders, and tho rank and file of the Labour Party. ’Whether such a meaning could be extracted from the article was a matter for the jury.

CURIOUS RESEiMBLANCE

His Honour commented that libel cases had a similar resemblance. The first thing Robinson did was to ask AteLaren to show what was wrong and Mr Gouiding had done similarly when McLaren was in the witness box. It was possible to feel instictivelv that an injury had been caused by a particular writing and yet it might be extremely difficult to explain precisely why it was telt there was an injure’.

The purpose of the article seemed to have been to do harm to the candidature of Davis, said his Honoui. Tho court was not concerned with whom Robinson was aiming at. but with whether he hit McLaren. It in the course of trying to discredit Davis Robinson had done harm to McLaren it did not. matter in the least that the object of the article was quite different.

Justification was a defence. It the facts were true there were also limits to fair comment. A critic was not allowed, even with a public man, to be wrong in his facts. After a long retirement the jury returned a decision in favour of the defendants by 10 to two. Judgment was granted defendants with costs according to scale and other costs requested.