Waikato Libel Case

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XV, Issue 186, 6 November 1925, Page 5

Waikato Libel Case

FOX v. GOODFELLOW. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Auckland, Nov. 6. The action elaiining £5OOO damages for alleged libel by John Ignatius Fox, against William Goodfellow was resumed in the Supreme Court this morning. Sir John Findmy, in opening the case for the defence, said that he had never known a v- .-<* in which a man brought into court his reputation and asked the jury to aasses the damage done to it by slander alleged, and yet shrinked from going into the witness box himself. Sir John Findlay read a letter written to Goodfellow by William Ronstead to Goodfellow, and said they pleaded they had reasonable grounds to believe the stateinonts’niacle in that letter were true. Three witness for plaintiff had stated 'on oath that Goodfellow had not been actuated by malice, and that lie had been quite sincere. Tho whole case showed complete absence of malice and bona fide. Counsel asked for a nonsuit on tho charge of slander, on the ground..; of law points. .His Honour r»sei'v(*d his decision. William Ranstead. farmer, of R-’g-lan. in evidence, admitted writing the letter mentioned. He admitted that had lie known tho letter was to he published h“ avmid 1 live framed it differently. but tho facts were there.-

Beforo yesterday’s adjournment of the Court. Mr. Seymour, counsel for plaintiff, said l\>x was induced to go to

Waikato to organise lor tho Waikato Dairy Farmers’ Union, which was a separate and distinct organisation from tho Nev- Zen land Co-operative Dairy Company, of which Goodfellow was tin* inanagimj director. Air. Seymour said the >’ was. in fact, a war on between th” Dairy Coinpaniy am] tho Union. “Wc say that Goodfellow, dooming th;’! L'ox was there to injure him. deliberately set out io blackmail Fox out of Waikato. I say it to Goodfellow’s face that libel, slander and blackmail aro usual weapons of his. He has been at the same thing before.” COUNSEL’S ADDRESS. In the course of his opening address, Sir .John Findlay said the law permitted, where a case was one for damages, counsel to show that a man had no •character. Sir John I’indlay read a letter written by William Ranstead to Goodfellow, which stated: “Fox, or lucahs as he was known, was an Austrian Jew. In .March, 1901, Fox came to Now Zealand as a curate to the vicar of Foxton, who repudiated him on his arrival. lie later went back to England and in 1911 1 saw him in tho High Commissioner’s office. 1 was indignant. In reply to my ques-

tion Fox said he had become naturalised m New Zealand and had joined tb.o New Zealand Expeditionary Force. 1 (reported Fox to the autlmrities as a possible spy, and later caught Fox Hying to pump several people as to when their relatives were coming over and what route they were taking. When Fox was shifted back to Now Zealand he strangely enough became

secretary of the Wellington branch of tjie R.S..A. On June 30, 1925. he turned up as organiser for the* Dairy 'Farmers’ Union. He at once aroused iny auspicious and in tho course of conversation he had said that a time of grout trouble -was coming and that unless the dairy farmers organised they would go under. He said that the situation would develop into one of two things -either the proprietary interests would obtain control of the dairying industry, or tho formation of small, self-contained co-operative concerns would save the situation. 1 believe that Fox would du anything for money, box renounced his country, his religion and politics (from .Rod Fed. he is now a member of the Reform party). I am sure Fox is no friends of the company and is in the Waikato to do it harm. 1 firmly believe that Fox is a German spy and would have no dealings with him under any circumstances i”