ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 214, 24 August 1922, Page 6

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Cross-examination of Mckay was continued this afternoon THE STRIKE TH I CT To Mr. Lusk: If they decided to strike it was referred to the Alliance of Labour. If the Alliance agreed, they would assist them. He was aware that one of the obpects was to secure the collective ownership of all industries and means of distribution and control of all industries by the workers for the good of the community. They did not advocate haphazard methods. There would be a Parliament in which only workers were to have a vote and only workers to be returned. The Alliance was loyal to the State and was only advocating a change, not a revolution. He advocated t'he change. His Honour said there was no harm in having the opinion, but there was no loyalty to the present constitution. Mr. O’Regan said that they appeared to be getting away from the subject of whether the charge of disloyalty was well founded or not.

His Honour said they seemed to be getting very near it. Witness, continuing, said the speaker, addressing the girls, showed what the Government had done against them. Witness did not know anything the Government had done for them, so the speaker could not advance anything! The speaker told them in effect that they should join the Alliance and make their position so strong that the Government would have to give them what thev wanted. On the speaker remarking that he would tell them what the Alliance would do Miss Morecroft entered ,and the meeting terminated. LAST WITNESS. John T. M. Piki, also a member of the postal staff, said he had 20 years’ service, and was examiner in the savings bank. He was chairman of the Salisbury meeting. Plaintiff said nothing that he would take exception to. There was nothing to justify an imputation of disloyaltv. To Mr. Lusk: At the Scinde Hall meeting the chief postmaster (Mr. McGregor) got up after hearing plaintiff and advised members not tq join up. Are you in favour of joining up with the Alliance of Labour? —} decline to answer.

Witness, continuing, saicl Ke did not agree with taking all means of produc. tion from the present owners, and putting them, into the hands of a certain class. He did not suppose it would be loyal to advocate a socialistic state replacing the present constitution. They had not been told this. This was the last witness. PLAINTIFF RECALLED. Plaintiff, recalled, said he had addressed between 39 and 46 meetings aince the one in and had al several meetings told the whole cir* cumstances of the twu men at Wanganui. To Mr Lusk: It must have slipped bis mind to mention the reinstatement of the men to the ladies’ meeting in Napier. This closed the case. NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Mr Lusk said he would call no evidence. Ho said he wished to submit that no evidence had been called to show plaintiff was the person referred to, and no evidence to show the application of disloyalty. The points were reserved. Counsel then commenced their addresses to the jury, Mr O’Regan, speaking first.