HASTINGS CLAIM FOR ALLEGED LIBEL

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 149, 25 June 1937, Page 2

HASTINGS CLAIM FOR ALLEGED LIBEL

Unionists Before Court REMARKS AT MEETING From Our Own Correspondent. HASTINGS, June 24. The Hastings Magistrate's court was well filled this morning when a claim for damages for alleged (libel was heard before Mr J. Miller, S.M. The action arose from a meeting of the General Labourers’ Union in Hastings. Harold Kay, labourer, of Napier, is proceeding against Charles Jennings, of Hastings, labourer, for remarks allegedly made at the meeting and a report of which was contributed to the Herald-Tribune by Mr Jennings. Great interest is being taken in the case, as was evidenced this morning bj’ the number of union members and supporters who filled the Court when the sitting opened. Mr. W. Selwyn Averill appeared for the defence and Mr. S. H. Morrison for the plaintiff. Plaintiff is claiming £lO damages plus the costs of the proceedings and any other relief the Court may see fit -to award. The following passages in the report published in the Herald-Tribune of April 17 last is objected to: — ‘‘lt was not until October 27 last, when Mr. Kay had embarked on a policy of ‘split,’ that an antagonism was shown to the Wellington union. He was leased to see Mr. Kay present that evening when he could mioxm the members in the presence of Mr. Kay that that gentleman (Mr. Kay) was dolibeiately responsible for fostering antagonism between the unions.” On the same day as the report was contributed to the Heraid-Tribuno said Mr. Morrison, defendant had obtained copies of the report and sent these out as circulars to members of the General Labourers’ Union, of which union both defendant and plaintiff were members. The defence had admitted publication and the distribution of the circulars, copies of which were produced in Court. The onus was on the ! defendant to prove that tho words com- ■ plained of were not libellous, and to . justify his action. Plaintiff Opens case. Mr. Averill submitted that the plaintiff should prove the innuendo, but Mr. Morrison maintained that this was for the defendant to do. He considered he was entitled to know before he b*gan his case what defence would be brought in. Mr. Averill quoted a ruling that the plaintiff would have first to establish a prima-facie case. After further argument by counsel, Mr. Miller ruled tentatively that Mr. Morrison should open his case and an order was made for all witnesses to leave the Court. j The Union meeting had been adver- j trned for the first time the same evening as jt was held, said Mr. Morrison, it wa s not called in accordance with the union’s rules, and insufficient notice had been given, so that a large number of members were unable to be pre- j sent. Mr. Butler, the secretary of the Wellington General Labourers’ Union, addressed the meeting, using the words complained of, and, following the meet- j mg, Mr. Jennings had published tb» remarks. It was not the practice to publish reports of union meetings, and no one was authorised to do so. There had been negotiations between the Wellington and Hawke’s Bay unions with a view to securing an amalgamation of the Hawke’s Bay and Wellington unions. This was Mr. ' Butler’s aim. Opinion was divided on the question in the Hawke’s Bay union, but plaintiff wanted the Hawke’s Bay • union kept in existence and had fought for the benefit of the Hawke’s Bay workers. Mr. Butler had been incensed | because the local bodies in Hawke’B Bay had been allotted, by a Court ruling, to the Hawke’B Bay union and j not to the Wellington union. At the meeting Mr. Butler had said | that Mr. Kay was creating ‘‘a policy of split,” in the Union ranks and was “deliberately responsible for fostering antagonism between the unions.” ‘‘We are not concerned with Mr. Butler’s use of these wc-rds, ’’ added Mr. Morrison, ‘‘but once they are published by Mr. Jennings they becomo his words.” The defendant must have known that the words were false when he published them. In a previous report compiled by Mr. Jennings a month before, he had not attacked Mr. Kay in any way, but he had attacked the Wellington unicn. Circular Sent Before Election. j Mr. Jennings had had no authority to obtain the circulars and distribute them. A copy of the circular had been 1 received by every member of the union, j The circular was sent out just before ;an election of secretary was held As ! a result of the report published, a nilmber of union members had treated Mr. Kay with distrust and contempt. There had been a feeling that he was , not ‘‘playing straight;.” To overcome | the contempt he was receiving from his l fellow-workers, counsel added, Mr. Kay I had had later to address meetings to I show that what had been published of him was false. The union had a membership of 1000. There were unions for everything today and such words might have the effect of preventing; plaintiff from join- , ing any union in New Zealand. I Harold Kay said he had taken a leading part in union affairs and had held the position of secretary, and was a member of the district council of the union and a delegate to the general federation in Wellington. He had read Ithe newspaper report and he had received a copy of it in circular form from Mr Jennings. The rules stated that a written notice had to be sent out seven days before the meeting to every member ot the union, stating the business for which the meeting was called. This had not been done on the occasion in question The newspaper report was not a true report. There were inaccuracies and omissions and he was represented as saying things which he had not 6aid. At a subsequent meeting R e Rad