ALLEGED LIBEL

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 287, 7 November 1925, Page 10

ALLEGED LIBEL

ACTION FOR DAMAGES'. Thousand pounds awarded. The. case for the plaintiff in the action for alleged libel in the Supreme Court at Auckland before Mr Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve, was closed late on Thursday afternoon. Tho parties in the action were John Ignatius Fox, formerly organiser for tile Waikato Dairy Farmers’ Union, and William Goodfellow, managingdirector of tho New Zealand Co-oper-ative Dairy Company, Limited. Mr Seymour and Mr McGregor appeared for the plaintiff and Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr Northeroft for defendant.

Charles Parker, farmer, To Awamutu, president of the executive of tho Waikato Dairy Farmers’ Union, stated that Fox was engaged by the union as an organiser for six months at a salary of £lO per week. About July last witness visited Goodfellow and at the interview the hitter asked witness if he knew that Fox had been twice reported as a spy at the front. Witness replied in the negative, and Goodfellow saiil that although he was not accusing Fox of being a spy, he produced a letter, which set out that Fox had been reported as being a spy. The letter was read by witness, who stated that the first part of it was missing. - Sir John : Do j<bu suggest that we are withholding part of the letter? Mr Seymour: No, Sir John, I am suggesting that part of the letter is 1,1 Witness said Goodfellow had stated that he did not trust Fox. He assured Goodfellow that he was wrong, in what he had said about Fox. and that the latter had not been paid by any outside interests. Goodfellow later told witness that he had written to a man named McKinney asking him to warn witness against Fox. The letter was written to McKinney because Goodfellow did not think hewould see witness before a conference to bo held at Pukekohe, Goodfellow did not tell witness what was in tho letter. He told Goodfellow that lie was wrong and had done Fox an injustice. Goodfellow had admitted that lie was worried at the time he made the allegations. Mr Seymour: Did Goodfellow refer to the possible result of this case?; His Honour: That is cross-examina-tion. Sir John: Ho has been doing that for the last ten minutes. Witness saw Goodfellow last Thursday at a meeting, which originated irom a conversation between witness and Goodfellow. That conversation was to the effect that, through the statements of Goodfellow made about Fox, the Dairy Farmers’ Union had been practically smashed. Goodfellow stated then that lie had no intention or desire to damage the union in any way. . , Mr Seymour: What is the financial position of the Dairy Farmers’. Union? His Honour: Is that relevant? Mr Seymour: I can do without it, but I want to show Sir John: I know what you are after, and I don’t think you are quite frank with me. Mr Seymour: Sooner than have any ill-feeling, I will go no further. Witness stated that soon after Goodfellow made tho statements he (witness) told Fox to cease organising. Cross-examined, witness stated that, in his opinion, the action was not prompted by any feeling of malice on the part of Goodfellow. Edward Charles Houshen. farmer, Hamilton, and a member of the Dairy Farmers’ Union gave evidence as to having told Goodfellow that he was making a mistake in speaking of Fox as lie had done. Goodfellow Had Said to him : “If a man comes into my territory to injure me or my company, I have no hesitation or compunction in smashing him.” Josenh McKinney, farmer, Bombay, produced a letter received from defendant, in which it was stated that Fox was a “questionable character,” and that he was not in the V aikato for the good of die company.

FRIDAY’S SITTING. The case was continued yesterday morning by Sir John I indlay opening tor the defence. He stated that he thought it was probably one of the most extraordinary cases of defamation of character that had ever been brought before a court of justice in New Zealand. He had never known a case where a man brought into court his reputation and asked a jury to assess dnmages done to it by the alleged slander, and yet shrinked from going iiito the box himself. Air Seymour objected to allegations being made against the man’s character. . . His Honour: The question is one of damages. , Sir John pointed out that the court permitted, where the case was one for damages, the counsel to show that a man had no character. A letter written by Mr William Ranstead to Goodfdlow was read by Sir John, in which it was stated that Fox or Fuchs, as ho was known, was an Austrian Jew. Mr Seymour objected to the reading of tho letter, and pointed out for the benefit of the Press that many of the allegations in it were libellous and had been concealed from him until last Monday. . , , , , Sir John: You have just heard that there may be further litigation, but 1 hope you don’t think this man lias a golden character.

MR RANSTEAD’S LETTED. Sir John continued by reading the letter: “In March, 1901, Fox came to New Zealand as curate to the vicar of Foxton, who repudiated him on his arrival. He later went back to England, and in 1914 L saw him in the J-ligh Commissioner’s office. 1 was indignant, and in reply to my question, Fox said ho had become naturalised in New Zealand and had joined the. New Zealand Expeditionary Force. I reported Fox to the authorities as a possible spy, and later caught Fox trying to pump several people as to when their relations were coming over ami what route they were taking. When Fox was shipped back to New Zealand, he strangely enough became secretary of the Wellington branch ol the Returned Soldiers’ Association. On June JO, 1925, ho turned ifp as organiser for the Dairy Farmers’ Pinion. He at once aroused 'my suspicions, and in the course of conversation he had said that a time of great trouble, was coming and that unless the dairy farmers organised thev would go under. He said tii© situation would develop into one of two things. Either tho proprietary interests would obtain control or the dairying industry, or tho formation of small, self-contained emoperativo concerns would save the situation. I. believe that Fox would do anything lor money. Fox renounced his country, his religion, politics (from Red Fed he is now a member of the Reform Party). I am sure that Fox is no friend of the company and is/in the to do it harm. I firmly be- j

Jievo that Fox is a German spy and would have no dealings with him under any circumstances.” Continuing, Sir John said they pleaded that they had reasonable ground to believe that tile statements in that letter were true. He maintained that any person who received such a letter from a reputable man, as llanstead was, was fully entitled to believe its contents. Air Seymour: Without further inquiry? Sir John stated that i'ox then had the impertinence, through his solicitor, to say that he was not going to say anything about his character. The one man, went on Sir John, who could meet and overthrow any inquiries into his character —that was what a Briton would do —was Fox. He Was entitled to ask the jury to infer that if Fox had gone into the box and submitted himself to cross-examination he would have left it with no character at all. And that is why lie would not face the music like a man. “A BITTER CONFLICT.” The real contest, said Sir John, was that the action was merely a phase <>■ a bitter conilict that was going on in

the Waikato to-day. It was a fern against one man, a man who nau fought it for years, so there was a deeper significance in the qiiestion than whether Fox had been sl.indcit or not. Referring to the evidence ot throe witnesses for the plamtirl, pointed out that they bad all state on oath that Goodfellow had not Dec. actuated by malice, and that tie bud been quite sincere. Ibe whole ease showed the complete absence ot malice and bona tides. Sir John Findlay moved for a nonsuit on the charges of slander jon the grounds of law points. His Honour reserved his decision. William llanstead, retired tanner. Ra'dau. admitted writing the letter (already quoted), which was sent to Goodfellow. He wrote that letter in consequence of his own observations ot Fox. . . , Fnder cross-examination, witness admitted that if he had known the letter whs to have been published he would have framed it differently, although the facts were there. It was written by his son at bis (witness’s) dictation. He did not realise that lie was dantaging Kox's character, but he thought it necessary that Goodfellow should know the character of tho man who was opposing him. DEFENDANT IN THE BOX. William Goodfellow, defendant, said lie had been associated with the dairying industry for 17 years. The cooperative company had been largely kept up by his personal interest. The Dairy Control hoard, of which lie was a member, iiad decided to give witness absolute control ’from August, 1920. The interests that were fighting him were fighting for £IOO,OOO per year, and that was a conservative estimate. The proprietary companies had endeavoured to obtain control of the Dairy Control Board. The size and intluenoG of witness’s company made it a substantial obstacle. At the time of the Fox incident there was violent controversy raging on the subject. The anti-control party was very active in the Waikato, and lie believed that the Waikato had been the principal fighting ground. In tho ulidcllc of the campaign he learnt of the arrival of Fox and of his activities. Witness heard that Fox had been interviewing some of the directors of the company and the editor of the Dairy Farmer. Fox had made a proposal to the effect that it- would be much better it the dairies of the Waikato were run by small companies instead of witness’s company. The subject of ward control Was mentioned to one of the directors. ■ Fox had evidently a clearly-conceived plan of what should be done in thq Waikato. To- His Honour: He knew that Fox had a perfect right to organise against him.

At an interview witness decided to get all the information he could from Fox and to check the statements in the letter received from Ranstead. In the course of the interview Fox spread himself with the idea of creating a good impression. Witness found that practically every statement made by Ranstead was correct. ■ Fox had agreed with everything witness had touched upon except the ward system. Another interview was held at a Inter stage, and during that witness lot Fox know how things stood, and said the company was not prepared to take him at his face value, and in view of certain information there was no possibility of them working together. Witness asked Fox if lie had not been twice reported as a spy, and Fox had replied that such was not the case. Witness had then decided that Fox was unreliable and that Itanstead’s statement whs unquestionable. When, in conversation with Mr Parker later, witness said: “I am very much concerned with this new organising secretary of yours, Parker, and 1 don’t think he is in the Waikato in the interests of the farmers.” Witness then Iqtndod Parker the letter received from Ranstead, and the former indicated tliut in his opinion it was not correct. Dealing with the sitting of the tribunal witness stated that the question arose out of an inquiry by a member regarding tho origin of the attacks that had been made. Witness had replied that they had all come from the same source, and that the anti-control party was at the back of it all. Pie had indicated that tlje attacks were largely personal, as he was head of the organisation opposing their interests. Witness said that a man named Fox had recently come to the Waikato, and that if reports were correct lie had twice been reported as a spy. ’The statement made by Wynvard was incorrect, and witness denied it. He did not make the statement to Wynynrd ; it was made in answer to a question. All the evidence given at that conference was made in strictest confidence.

“A SERIOUS THING.” Cross-examined, witness stated that lie was of the opinion that Ilanstead’s statement was true to tile letter. Mr Seymour : Why did von not plead it? n Witness: I left Phat-tcT'liiy solicitors. Mr Seymour: You will notice, if you look at that letter, that Ranstead referred to Fox as a probable spy. / Witness: It is n small distinction. Mr Seymour:' My point is that you did not take Ransteud’s statement. Witi ioss : I think I did. Mr Seymour pointed out that witness had made a statement which differed from that contained in the letter. He suggested that witness had forgotten bis customary care. Witness: I know it is a serious thing to call a man a spy. ]t was not a point whether it was a cruel statement; it was my duty to inform those who were interested in business. John Robert Fow, Mayor of Hamilton, and one of the tribunal which inquired into Mr Sinclair’s charges, said that Goodfellow, so far as lie recollected, did not say that Fox, if he had been served right, would have been shot twice as a spy. He did say that

Fox had been twice reported as a spy. This was in answer to a question by witness. ADDRESS TO JURY. In addressing the jury, Sir John Findlay submitted that the allegations against Fox had been made by Goodfellow under a sense of duty to his company, and then confidentially to a few people most concerned. But for the present action, they would not have reached the public. Sir John eondciuned Mr Seymour’s attack on Goodie-How's character, “the more so.” lie said, “because they eaiiie from counsel whose own client lias a character so shady that he dared not venture into the box to give evidence.” Fox was trying to make capital out of ilie character which lie had not the pluck to defend. Plainly the ease was a commercial one. Mr Seymour declared that Goodfellow’s mnlnee (using the term in its legal sense) was shown by the fact that on his own admission, he had selected certain persons to receive the allegations against Fox. Ilis purpose was to promote his own opposition to the ward system, which menaced the dictatorship he exercised over dairying in his district. He was out to “smash'’ Fox, who was merely suggesting a better method of organisation. la summing up. His Honour invited the jury to find for defendant on one cause of action relating to an alleged statement to Parker that Fox was in the employ of the propi ictnry concerns. He remarked that the evidence in support of it was insufficient and there was a doubt whether, if made, the statement was defamatory. If the jury had to consider damages it would probably conclude that the £S(J(J(J claimed was excessive. It must consider plaintiff’s station in life in deciding what sum, if any, should be awarded. Just before midnight the jury returned a verdict for £IOOO damages. Judgment was reserved pending "argument on non-suit points.