DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 75, 10 March 1933, Page 6

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

SEAMEN’S PRESIDENT COURT AWARDS £5O. “RED WORKER’’ ARTICLE. By Telegraph—Press Association Wellingto ll , March 10. In a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr T. B. McNeil, S.M., awarded Finton Patrick Walsh, general president of the Federated Seamen’s Union £5O damages for libel as a result of an action for £3OO damages that Walsh brought agaiist Charles Barker, proprietor of the Communist paper “The Red Worker.” The article complained of in “The Red Worker’ ’was headed “Freezing Workers’ Strike,” with subheadings, “Walsh Aids Bosses” and “The ‘Black Prince’ Appears.” It read as follows:— “The ‘Black Prince’ Appears. In our last issue we proved how J. Roberts acted as a strike breaker, now Walsh, of the Seamen’s Union, has appeared on the scene as a strike breaker. The following letter from the Hawke’s Bay secretary of the freezing workers to the Wellington district seer wary of the Freezing Workers’ Union shows Walsh in his true ro'e. ” “Munroe House, Munroe Street,

“Napier, November 10, 1932. “Mr McLeod: Dear Sir,— To-day Walsh addressed th e seamen in Napier and told them to handle the meat killed at the freezing works of Hawke's Bay by ‘scabs.’ I have confidential information that he also addressed the executive of the Napier Waterside Workers telling them the same thing. He stated that the freezing workers’ officials were not playing the game with the Alliance of Labour, and also that the freezing workers of New Zealand were not playing the game with the seamen and waterside workers, because we were just using them ror our own benefit. In case of accident be prepared for a wire-,, because we are expecting a trainload of meat to be either sent to New’ Plymouth or Wellington. Signed George Johnstone, Hawke’s Bay secretary.”

In the course of his judgment the magistrate said that plaintiff was not a member of the striking union nor was his union a party .to the strike. Plaintiff’s union, also the Waterside Workers’ Union and Freezing Workers’ Union were, he understood, affiliated with the Alliance of Labour but the alliance did not take over the conduct of the strike. That .was left to the Freezing Workers’ Union. Each member of an affiliation of the alliance was free to express his views as to how his affiliation should act.

Members of the striking union would without doubt, and many other unionists probably would resent plaintiff’s alleged conduct as disloyal to the strikers and to the cause of the Labour movement generally'. On the other hand, some people in the community might consider it praiseworthy as an attempt, from a person of weight, to prevent the holding up of a national industry. But the view which must determine the matter is not the extremist one on either side, but that of the average citizen. How, then, would he regard the statements? ‘ ‘ The assertion is that plaintiff, a highly-placed trade union official, whose means of living is the remuneration he receives from his position, instead of doing his best to further a sister union’s interests, or remaining neutral, ran counter to them, and was a strikebreaker and aided the employers,' ’ the magistrate said. “It means that his alleged action was contrary to his duty to a very large section of the community, and that ho had aided the employers instead of the workers. It implies that he has been disloyal to the people from whom he has his living. That, I think, is what an average member of the whole community would infer on reading the paper. To so write of a man in plaintiff’s position is, in my judgment, defamatory of him and a libel.”

Pudgment was given for plaintiff for £5O with costs.

At the hearing Mr E. P. Hay ap pcared for plaintiff and Mr L. K. Wilson for defendant.