Reporters’ Evidence in Libel Action

Northern Advocate, 30 March 1946, Page 2

Reporters’ Evidence in Libel Action

The hearing of the claim by the secretary of the Auckland Drivers' Union. Lawrence Gerard Matthews, for £ ROO damages for alleged libel against Wil- : son & Horton Ltd, pttblisners, was ad- > journed yesterday until Monday. Matthews' claim is based on words j in a leading article in the New Zoa- j land Herald on September 12. 1945. ■ under the heading “The Bus Strike." !

Mr A. H. Johnstone. K.C.. and Ur Haigh are appearing for Matthews, and Mr H. F. Richmond and Mr North for

the defence. INTERVIEWS WITH MATTHEWS Holt Boardman. a Herald reporter, said he had interviewed Matlnews on January 5. 1944. and on other dates. In one of these interviews Matthews said the union was prepared to accept the consequences of its decision to stop work, and if the Minister gave effect to his threat of de-registration they intended to maintain their stand. On another occasion Matthews said "the action of the Minister with the concurrence of Cabinet has all the elements of wielding the big stick.” He also said the action of the Government compelled the workers to submerge their grievances, and accept the dictates of their employers assisted by the Government REPORTS ACCURATE Charles Walter Tootill, another Herald reporter, said a report appearing on August 30. 1944. was a fair and correct report of what Matthews hud said the previous day.

This report, which was read to the i court, recorded a decision of the Driv- j ers' Union to apply to the Minister of ] Labour to set up an Emergency Dis- j pules Committee. I Witness similarly testified to the accuracy of another report published on j February 23. 1945. referring to the. j failure of negotiations and the decision ; to hold., a slopwork meeting at the { Trades Hall. In this, Matthews was reported to have said that he had informed the proprietors that, in the past the workers had always been thrown on the mot cy o flhe court when wages and hours were under discussion, and the result had been that the workers were dissatisfied with the court’s award. • NOT GOOD ENOUGH" By arrangement, continued Tootill. Matthews called to see him at the Herald Office on September 9 last. Tootill said he had just read that the Minister had agreed to set up an Emergency Disputes Committee, and said to Matthews, “I see it is well fixed up new.” Matthews replied. "Oh. no, pal, far from it." and then began to speak very forcibly. Matthews said, continued Tootill: “The position is not good enough and we are not going to stand it. We have played around for long enough, and this time we aim to gel satisfaction. The tribunal is to sit this week, or you will see what will happen." “THEY'LL STRIKE ALL RIGHT” Asked it the men were likely to ! strike if they did not get satisfaction, { Matthews replied: “They'll strike all i right. It is in the hands of the drivers' j committee, and they are going to meet

in the morning. We are not going to be pushed around by the employers any longer. We will get what we want this time, or they will know all about it."

Tootill continued that when asked why the men were objecting to the appointment of a magistrate as chairman of the tribunal, Matthews said: “O'Brien is suggesting Paterson from Hamilton, but we are not going to have that —. We had him once before and we lost. If we have him again we will lose again. We don’t mind

Biil f reeman, because he is a good Labour man. but we won't have Paterson."

Matthews had been speaking very forcibly and then said: '’Of course you can’t put that in the paper. Now I will give you something you can put in.”' TOLD EDITOR After Matthews left, Tootill told the chief reporter of the section which Matthews had said was not for the paper. While he was doing so the editor came into the room and Tcotill repeated to him the statements made by Matthews. On September 14, Tootill said, he heard someone say there might be trouble over the leader that appeared on September 12, and on September 17 he typed out the words used by Matthews in his conversation.

Answering Mr -Johnstone. Tootill said the published result of an interview would not differ in meaning from what the interviewed person had said. It could be so if a newspaper left out a substantial proportion of the reporter’s copy.

Mr Johnstone: In a published report of Mr Matthews’ statement of September 4 a substantial portion of the interview as you recorded it was omitted. Did you complain? Tootill: I did mention it to the chief reporter on the following day. The sub-editors would have their own reasons, such as space, for omitting it. NOTE NOT COLOURED The omitted portion of this interview was where Mr Matthews was pointing out that a statement by an employers’ spokesman was inaccurate and giving the opinion of a drivers’ meeting, that there was undue delay in holding proceedings. It was an ostensible reason for their trouble?—According to Mr Matthews, yes. Did you think there was any impropriety in telling the chief reporter of material that was given you not for publication?—That material was not given to me as an individual, but as an agent of tlie Herald. That is a matter of common practice. Matthews has always been careful to say if anything was in confidence ,and on those occa-

sions it was treated as such. Re-examined by Mr Richmond. Tooth! said .he was not likely to colour his report of the conversation with the plaintiff on account of the knowledge of possible trouble over the- leading article.

i His job ior years had been to collect | facts, and he would not depart from them. The note he made on SeptemI ber 17 was an honest record and was j not coloured to suit anyone.

<£necial> AUCKLAND. This Day.