BARRISTER SUES PRINTER FOR LIBEL

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3394, 9 July 1926, Page 4

BARRISTER SUES PRINTER FOR LIBEL

ECHO OF 1925 ELECTION. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, July 7. His Honour, Mr. Jiistico Stringer, and a special jury were occupied at Hie Supreme Court to-day hearing an action involving a claim of HUM Jamages by Alfred Hall Skelton, barrister and solicitor, against Henry Hastings Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for alleged libel contained in certain printed matter during the election of 1925. Sir John Findlay and Mr. Xnder are counsel for plaintiff, and Messrs. C. W. Finlay and Ilogerson for defendants. The alleged libel was contained in a circular headed: "Protestant Political Association,” and signed by Seabrook as president of the Roskill group. Plaintiff contended that the circular in fact meant that he was disloyal and in sympathy with murderers. A second cause of action concerned alleged matter in the Now Zealand Sentinel, which plaintiff claimed set him out as being disloyal. On the first claim plaintiff asked for £2OOO, and on the second £3OOO damages. The defence will be a denial of publication; that the words complained of were not intended to mean what was alleged, nor did they bear any defamatory meaning. Among the witnesses to-day was plaintiff. Alfred Hall Skelton, who detailed activities during the war in recruiting work and in the National Reserve. Explaining the effect of the alleged libel he said that up to 1921 his business had been successful, and that his gross takings that year were over £4000; after that they dwindled. He had been boycotted, and when he tried to join different associations he found various matters were brought up, and that ho was avoided. The court adjourned until to-mor-rowr. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS. AUCKLAND, Last Night. Henry Hastings Seabrook. defendant, said he had been in Auckland for 67 years. He was a resident and au elector of the Roskill electorate, and was also president of the Roskill group of the Political Protestant Association. During the war he was on the side of Empire, and took a great interest in Irish historical affairs. In his opinion, they were all a lot of rebels in Ireland. Sir John Xi’indlay: Oh! Witness modified his remark by saying that a great number were. He had never attacked Mr. Hall Skelton. He strongly denied that he had ever accused the plaintiff of killing his children, or thrashing his wife. It never went through his mind, and it was a deliberately untrue statement. He did not know anything about it until yesterday. Ho was well-known in the Roskill district. His Honour: Tou need not press that point. Sir John Findlay: I will Instruct the jury that the evidence on those lines is not to be taken note of. If such had been said there should have been witnesses.

Witness said he had nothing to do with tho publication of the circular complained of. «Jlis Association circulated the matter, but he had nothing to do with that. The circular which bore his name was prepared by members of his group. He signed it as president. About one thousand of these circulars were printed, and they were no doubt distributed about the district. In the 1922 election, the Political Protestant Association issued two circulars. Sir John: Do you tell the jury that you bore no animosity towards Mr. Hall Skelton. Witness: None whatever. Sir John quoted a paragraph in one of the circulars in which the plaintiff was alleged to bo supported by the Roman Catholic vote, which was out to get anything it could. Witness said he thought it alluded to the Self Determination League. Sir John: You mention the repre-sc-ntative. Witness: I understood it to be a branch of the main party. Sir John: You sent that circular out? Witness: No, my executive did. Sir John; But you circulated a great many of Ihem? Witness: I always take an interest in things I am concerned with, and I don’t dispute that I circulated some of them. Sir John: Did you say Mr. Hall Skelton was a disloyalist? Witness: That is a lie. What I did say was that I objected to Mr. Hall Skelton associating with rebels and disloyalists. Sir John: Will you tell the jury that 'by those circulars, you did not intend to harm Mr. Hall Skelton. Witness: I only wanted the electors to know the man who was associating with rebels. Sir John: What you wanted to imply was that Mr. Hall Skelton was an associate of rebels? Witness: He was associated with rebels who wanted to get separation from England. I have been an antlHome Ruler, and I am against disintegration of tho British Empire. Sir John; Don’t make a speech. Do you deny that you meant that Mr. Hall Skelton was disloyal? Witness; I did not. Sir John: Why did you keep that circular back until two or three da.ya before the election? Witness: It was circulated more than a. week before the election, and there was no object in keeping it back. Sir John: You don’t know that you broke tho law? Witness: I don't know that I have. Sir John: You were convicted and— His Honour: There is an appeal. Sir John, and that is hardly a matter that can 1)0 dealt with: Tho verdict, after one hour’s retirement, was that there was no libel In either cause, of action. One juryman asked that, a note bo made that though

there was no libel, the methods adopted by defendant were to bo deprecated. Costs were allowed against plaintiff..