ALLEGED LIBEL

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 286, 6 November 1925, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. CASE FROAI HAMILTON. The case in which John Ignatius Fox, pro-organiser of tho New Zealand Dairy Farmers’ Union (Messrs D. Seymour and E. McGregor) is plaintiff, and William Goodfeliow, managing director of tho New Zealand Co-opera-tive Dairy Company (.Sir John Findlay, IC.C.;- and. Mr Northcroft) is the defendant, an action for alleged libel, Was continued at the Auckland Supremo Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve. FIVE CAUSES OF ACTION. In opening, Air Seymour said that Fox was taking action against Goodfellow for £SOOO. Sir John Findlay: Aloro than that. The claim is for £25,000. Air Seymour explained that there wero five causes of action, somo of them verbal and some in writing, for which tho law obliged plaintiff to claim separately. There were certain minor differences in the statements, hut in substance they wero the same. Roughly, the substance of each statement was that Fox was twice reported during the war for being a spy. The jury would understand that to mako such a statement was to suggest to any men who heard t that thero was something behind it to warrant it. But Goodfeliow had gone further, to say that if Fox had had his rights he would have been twice shot as a spy. Sir John Findlay: That is denied, of coursol

Fox, said Air Seymour, was induced to come to the Waikato to organise for tho Waikato Dairy Farmers’ Union, which was a separate and distinct organisation from tho New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company, of which Goodfeliow was the managing directn\ Air Seymour said that thero was, in fact, a war on between the dairy company and the union. UNION’S FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES. Tho Waikato Dairy Farmers’ Union had been in serious financial difficulties for some considerable time past, said Air Seymour, and they had a £tuud overdraft at the hank, guaranteed by five members of tho executive. The union decided to reorganise, and with that end in view Fox, who lived in Feilding, and who had organised very successfully in the Manawatu, was approaclie'd with a view to doing the work in tho Waikato.

At this stage Air Justice Herdman interposed with a query concerning tho causes of action, and Air Seymour said that he thought it was agreed that the first cause was admitted.

The negotiations between Fox and the union lasted for eighteen months, continued counsel, at tho end of which timo he came to the Waikato for three months, and for three months only. Ho started out on his work of organising. To his astonishment ho found that certain statements had been circulated in the district concerning him, and these statements were of sued a nature as to absolutely nullify his efforts. The statements wero that ho was a spy, and ought to liavo been shot as a spy. Fox traced'the statements to Goodfeliow. REPORTS IN NEWSPAPER. The statement had been made to the chairman, and Fox demanded an apology from Goodfeliow within 24 hours. The latter replied that tho letter had been received, and that he had sent it to the company’s solicitors. What it had to do with the company’s solicitors counsel did not know, because it had been made on Goodfeliow personally. It was certain that something had to he done to protect Air Fox’s name, and as nothing was done in the 24 hours, Fox issued a writ claiming £SOOO.

Sir John Findlay stated that on the first statement of claim the action was for £SOOO, but that £SOOO was also claimed on tho other informations, making £25,000 in all. Mr .Seymour said lie would point out that the claim was £SOOO. After the writ was issued, defendant took a most extraordinary step, causing a statement to bo published in the Waikato Times, in which he said ho had not received the writ, but be fully expected to receive several before the annual'meeting, and that be would not withdraw anything he bad said. It seemed to Mr Seymour that defendant was coming very close to contempt of court in making such a statement. Goodfellow’s attitudo left tho inference that he had said nothing defamatory of Fox, and that Fox’s action in issuing the writ was sheer bluff. Mr Seymour referred to further published statements, in which Goodfellow spoko of the mobilisation of hostile farces in the district. Goodfellow was reported as saying that lie knew just how far “the foreign gentleman’s interests” in the farmers extended. It should he understood that Goodfellow was a director and a. large shareholder in the Waikato Times. Goodfellow had actually had tho impudence to suggest that the farmers should establish a sort of secret service to discover vhy any organisation should spend so much time and money in sowing the seeds of discontent. In the arrival of Fox, Goodfellow saw nothing hut a man vl o was to ho smashed at all costs. “What I want to draw attention to is the nature of tho statements made against my client,” said -Mr .Seymour. To-say that a man was a spy and that he ought to have been shot was as much as to say lie had committed the grossest crime any man could commit. The law allowed a man a considerable. amount of ropo in making statements. It was permissible, in eeitain instances, for an employer to he warned by an employee. In ibis case, however, the defendant’s pica of piivilege was washed out- by the evidence, which would be tendered in order to show malice. Defendant had not pleaded that what lie said was true, but tho miserable defence was that lie was entitled

Sir John Findlay vigorously protested against the term “miserable defence.” Mr Seymour withdrew the statement

Counsel for plaintiff next referred to the evidence of a witness, who would say that, he was a personal friend of Fox, and also a personal friend of Goodfellow. ' This witness rang up Goodfellow and rebuked him for what he had said about Fox, assuring him that the;'statement was untrue. Goodfellow rfhplied that lie was quite prepared tvr take the risk. “DUTY TO HIT HIM HARD.” “Further,” said Mr Seymour, “this witness will say that Goodfellow said he seldom made’a mistake in matters of this sort, and that lie said: ‘lf a man comes into ray district; to injure me. I have no hesitation in smashing

him. It is my duty to hit him, and hit him hard.’ ”

AIR GOODFELLOAV’S GREAT INFLUENCE.

“Wo say,” said Air Seymour, “that Goodfeliow was out to injure Fox, rightly or wrongly, and to deliberately blackmail him out of tho Waikato. It was a rival b >dy to whom Goodfeliow went to complain.” Air Justice Herdman: You can’t prove system in a. matter of this kind, can you, Mr Seymour? Air Seymour held that he could. It and slander wero an habitual practice of Goodfellow’s.

Sir John Findlay objected. Air Seymour went on to say that libel was relevant as showing that it was not with an innocent mind that he attacked the question. It was a question as to the character of the detendant.

His Honour: You may cross-exam-ine him on that. Air Seymour: As your Honour pleases. 1 will not call evidence in chief, hut will wait till defendant is in the witness-box.

Defendant rejoiced in the modest title of “The Butter-fat King,” continued Afr Seymour. He was managing director of a' company that controlled one-quarter of tho whole of the dairy produce of New Zealand, and counsel suggested, the company was controlled by him. Tho full extent of his sway and influence in the Waikato could scarcely ho believed by anyone who did not go there. Although ho was an employee of the company, Goodfeliow saw fit to run a ticket for the directorate.

His Honour: Alay I ask what that has to do with the case?

Mr Seymour: What I want to show is relevant in that Goodfellow’s prestige and honour was such that, when the writ was issued, he felt it incumbent on him to “crack hearty,” as they would say in the army. His Honour: What does that mean P (Laughter). Air Seymour: To “crack hearty” is to put the best face on it. THREAT OF ADJOURNMENT. Air Seymour referred to one of the letters containing allegations, and stated that it had been procured from the defendant only after considerable trouble. In that connection it would probably he necessary for him, at a later stage, to ask leave to amend his claim to embody tho words in the letter. Sir John Findlay: In that ease I will probably ask for an adjournment. Mr Seymour: I submit that you had that letter for three months, and refused to deliver it to us. Sir John: You had your remedy. His Honour: Wo will see about that later.

Air Seymour concluded by saying that it was common ground that Fox served in tho Great War. It was alleged by Goodfellow that ho was an Austrian, and of Jewish origin, and that was true.

James G. Wynyard, farmer, Te Awamutu, deposed that on the occasion of tho holding of a tribunal sot lip at the request of a committee of shareholders of the New Zealand Co-oper-ative Dairy Company to investigate certain allegations made by Air A. J. Sinclair with reference to tho maladministration of the accounts of the dairy company, lie was present. Towards the-close of tho tribunal Goodfellow, in response to a question by. witness, apparently lost his temper and made disparaging remarks about tho auditors of tho Dairy Company. Then addressing witness, Goodfellow said: “As to that fellow Fox, who tho Dairy Farmers’ Union lias got out, ho is nothing but an Austrian Jew, and if he had his rights he would have been shot twice during the war for being a spy.” Sir John: Shot twice! f suppose after ho was dead he would have been killed again. (Laughter). To His Honour: box had nothing to do with tho matter, and that is why lie thought Goodfellow had lost his temper. Under cross-examination witness admitted that tho inquiry was confidential. Tho only person to whom ho had mentioned the statements made by Goodfellow were to Fox. But that was some time after the occurrence. There was no context leading up to the remarks, and defendant’s tone was an angry one, but it was not necessarily a fact that it could be heard all over the room. The case is unfinished.