ALLEGED LIBEL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16493, 7 March 1914, Page 14

ALLEGED LIBEL.

A NEWSPAPER CASE. “ NEW ZEALAND TIMES ” v. “ DOMINION.” [Pee Peess Association.] WELLINGTON, March 6. The hearing of the action in which the "Now Zealand Times” claimed from the Wellington Publishing Company £3OOO for libel was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr Justice Hocking and a jury of twelve. For the plaintiff company, Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and Sir .John Findlay, K.C., with Mr O'. E. btout, appeared, and the defendants were represented by Mr C. B. Morison, E.C., Mr M. Myers and Mr T. C. A. Hislop. The article in the "Dominion” on December 11, 1913, in which the alleged libel was contained was as follows: “The inventive genius of our morning contemporary is having a very busy time just now, drawing upon its imagination for grounds on which to attack its political opponents. In yesterday’s issue that veracious organ of die brewing industry gave up quite a lot of its space to venomous comments on its own distorted version of current happenings, and no doubt ’ound therein some relief for its own troub'es and misgivings concerning the future. It is a little foolish of that decadent mouthpiece of a decaying cause to so plainly disclose its sympathies with the Red Federation if it really wishes to help Sir Joseph Ward. Tne great bulk of the people have seen exact’y what the Red Federation stands for, and when the official mouthpiece of Wardism, which has on every possible occasion insidiously encouraged the strikers in the present industrial crisis, openly urges that the Liberals of New Zealand .should throw in their lot with the Socialist-Anarchist organisation in order to gratify the spleen of their leaders and defeat the miniscandidates, it is not calculated to do either the Liberal Party or the 1 New Zealand Times ’ much good with the business people of the community. Of course it is generally recognised here that our morning contemporary has few scruples where it desires to give rein to its malignant hatred of the Government, but it will find it a little difficult to convince the public of Wellington at least that a journal -which advocates the encourageigent and support of the Red Federation and its lenders' and ruinous methods in preference to a Government which, whatever its faults, has honestly and firmly carried out its duty to tne public, is deserving of either credence or respect. Perhaps Sir Joseph Ward and his friends will now see that they should disown the Red Federation to which their official mouthpiece has already committed itself.”

In opening for the plaintiffs Sir John Findlay said that a daily newspaper had to defend its character. They all know that those who ventured into public pr ; nt, those who criticised others, challenged criticism in return. Any such man was liable to be told that his ideas were nonsense, and he did not know what lie was talking about. This was fair and admissible. A newspaper, like a private person, was bound to defend its reputation. It must have a reputation for decency and law and order just as any public man. It would be scandalous if a newspaper could bo assailed and have its reputation ruined without any redress. He would like the jury to find in tips attack on the "Now Zenland Times” a motive which aimed at its circulation and its advertisements. They would remember the loss to the community and the bitterness entailed by- the waterside workers’ strike. The chief subject of anathema was the Federation of Labour, known ns the " Red Fed.” The “Dominion” surpassed itself in the bitterness with which it attacked the Federation. Counsel then read two paragraphs dealing with the aims of the Federation of Labour as set forth by tho “ Dominion,” in which it was alleged that the aims and objects of the Federation were criminal and dishonest. Tho " Dominion,” said counsel, had admitted it bad often stated that such were the objects of the Federation, and then turned round, and alleged that the "Now Zealand Times ” was an ally of the Federation. The " Dominion,” having worked up all these allegations against the Red Federation._ had declared that the " Times ” was in league with it. in order to injure its business. Any editor allied to a cause such as that depicted rendered himself liable to prosecution. The “ Dominion ” having made the charge did- not attempt to substantiate it, hut merely took shelter behind a vague defence. The onus of proof distinctly rested on ■the defendants. Mr Morison contended that the plaintiffs had assumed that there was no proper pica of fair comment. Counsel submitted that the _ position was quite plain. The plaintiffs must put in as part of their case 'the articles on which the defence pleaded that it was fair comment, and of which they had had particulars furnished mi. pursuance of liis Honor’s direction. These were properly part of the plaintiff’s case. His Hcnor remarked that he could not tell the plaintiffs that they must conduct their case in any particular way. ,Tf they chose to rely upon what the}* had done ho could not interfere. Mr Morison asked his Honor to note his application. He was not moving it as a non-suit. His Honor refused a motion, hut, said he would note the point raised by counsel. Mr Myers applied for a non-suit on tho grounds (1) that the words complained of were not reasonably capable of the innuendo alleged. (2) that tlm words were not libellous per se, and (3) that they were not written of and concerning tho plaintiff company and its business. As regarded the third ground, if there was an attack made at all upon the plaintiffs, it was submitted that that attack was made upon a set of articles in the newspaper, and was not an attack upon the company or upon the business of the company. His Honor: It is an attacK on the company’s goods? Mi- Myers: Exactly, that is just what I was going to say. His Honor: That is not an expression of oninicn on my part. It was merely a question. Mr Myers said that his side contended that a fair perusal showed that the words were comment on previous articles in the "New Zealand Times. 1-Ie contended that an article written concerning an article previously appearing could not he an attack upon any member of the staff or anyone connected with tbs paper. If it were merely an attack on matter that had appeared in the newspaper then ?t could not bo a proper subject of libel. Mr Skerrett, replying to the third non-suit point, said that the matter in the article read together meant that, the "Times” was a supporter of sod’tion and violence. I-lis Honor, in reward to the points raised, said that the best course to take would be to grant Have to move for a non-suit, as he could not pretend to give adequate consideration to the matter there and then. Mr Morison said that with a certain amount of inside knowledge of Court, rtroeeod’ngs tho case for the nlvntiff had nlrno t a comic aspect. Libel actions were sometimes necessary, but he ventured to say that, never before had they had one paper suing another for an election article. The central fact was that tho comment was an election article. No one objected to criticism. The public was very tolerant of the methods adopted by the newspapers in

carrying out their public duties. Tho defence said first of all that it was not writing about the company at all. A company wa3 a legal abstraction, and the position was that one legal abstraction was suing another legal abstraction. Tho second contention was that the words did not mean what plaintiff said they did. Tho third was that they were not libellous, and the fourth that they were fair comment on an election. Mr Morison read from an article in the " New Zealand Times ” to show that the paper admitted on Wednesday, December 10, that Mr M’Gombs woe the nominee of the Federation of Labour for the Lyttelton seat. " The seat must be won.” ran the article, “by the Federation of Labour.” Counsel submitted that this article was a direct challenge to the " Dominion ” newspaper tod an in* vitation to Liberals to vote for the Red Federation candidate as against tho Reform candidate. There was no dispute as to what the Red Federation stood for or what its leaders stood for, sedition and violence. The object of th® _ 1 ‘ Dominion ” article was to get the " Times ” to withdraw its support from the Red Federation’s candidate for tho Lyttelton sent. Not one thought was given to the question of advertising or circulation. Knowing what the Red Federation stood for the " Dominion 11 had expressed the view that public opinion would not supnort the “ Times ” in its advocacy of the Fed*ration’s candidate. The opinions of the Times on the strike were a noint of view which might honestly be Held, but the ‘Dominion” equally honestly said that the effect of that point of view* was to encourage the strikers. The case was unfinished when tho Court rose for the day.