LIBEL ACTIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 15 October 1932, Page 6

LIBEL ACTIONS

A GREAT CROP. SYDNEY, October 7. This week the Courts of New South Wales started out to clear ofil what has been described at “the greatest crop of libel actions in our legal history.” The claims, which are supposed to he heard and decided before the) Christmas vacation closes legal business for the year amount in all to £250,000. As; might be expected, most oi these claims have political origin, and, as ivould' be” anticipated by anyone familiar with Sydney’s journalism, “The. Labour Daily" figures prominently’in the list. Tlie biggest case is that brought by the directors of As-' seriated Newspapers against “The Labour Daily” for £90,000 in all; though in this instance the Langite organ is “coupled with the name of’ Mr J. C. Sleeman, Lang’s publicity agent. Sir Daniel Levy has also sued “The Labour Daily” for £500; hut the other newspapers have not by any means escaped. Mr McCauley, Lang’s private secretary, lias sued the “Sun’ for £10,000; Captain Warneford, whose name came into prominence in i connection with, the New Guard and I the assault on Jock Garden, has sued the “Herald” for £10,000; and “Truth” hai been the recipient of writs from idr Carter, K.C., claiming £25,000. A claim of a more personal nature is that of Mrs Augusta Walton Smith against “Truth” for £3OOO. This case is” “part heard,” and is already one of the sensations of the hour. Another is “Wizard” Smith’s suit against “Smith’s Weekly” for £20,000 damerres ou account of the yellow flag story, which also promises dramatic developments. To return to the political sphere, all interested in public affairs will note that, while the Premier i s suing Mi Lang for £SOOO, Mr Eldridge, an M. H.IL has brought a suit for £SOOO against) Mr Stevens. Of the other semi-political cases the most noteworthy are the suit for £IO,OOO brought, against “The Labour Daily” by.the A.W.U., and a suit for £SOOO claimed from the A.R .U. by a member of the Railway .Service Association. It is certainly a portentouslist, and most o,f the cases spring from political disputes and party feeling. But, whatever the origin or the merits of these controversies, as ono newspaper cheerfully remarked, “the lawyers aTe due for a picnic and the jurors for a purgatory.”