CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 216, 10 August 1940, Page 9

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

NEWSPAPER SUED. COURT CASK SEQUEL. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Aug. 9. An action against the Labour newspaper, the Standard, was begun before Air Justice Eair and a jury in the Supreme Court when Francis Simpson, a printer, of Auckland, claimed from the New Zealand Worker Printing and Publishing Company, and John Glover, publisher, £IOOO damages for allegedly false and malicious publication respecting plaintiff in the Standard of April 11, 1940. The publication complained of, alleged plaintiff, was headed “Charges against five Communists” and “Alleged publication,of subversive reports.” This publication, it was further alleged, had the effect of making it appear that plaintiff was a Communist, that in the eyes of honest people the Communist Party were held in contempt and were traitors to New Zealand, that plaintiff was a revolutionary or associated with a revolutionary movement, that lie was disloyal to the King and Empire, or associated with disloyalists, that he was not prepared to fight for or support the Empire in the present war, that lie was associated with the Communist newspaper, the People’s Voice, that ho was the printer and publisher of such newspaper, that he was a member of the Communist Party, that he considered the present war a capitalistic and imperialistic war, that he was in favour of the Empire stopping the war immediately.

This publication, plaintiff submitted, had injured his character, credit, and reputation, and his business, and had brought him into public hatred and ridicule.

The defence filed is that the headlines and the first two paragraphs of the publication referred to were published in bona fide mistake, without malice, and that at the first, opportunity defendant caused to be inserted in the Standard of Alay 2, 1940, an apology and expression of regret. A further defence is that the publication was a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings in the Alag.istrate’s Court on April 2. 1940, on an information against plaintiff and other persons, alleging breaches of the Censorship and Publicity Emergency Regulations, 1939. The 'defence also submits that the words complained of do not hear and are not capable of bearing the meanings it is alleged by plaintiff they bear.

The hearing of evidence was begun, and the hearing was adjourned till Alonday.