Alleged Libel In Newspaper

Northern Advocate, 2 April 1946, Page 5

Alleged Libel In Newspaper

i p.A.) AUCKLAND. This Day. Defence counsel's address opened today's continuation of the alleged libel action by Lawrence Gerard Matthews, union secretary, against Wilson and Horton Ltd. proprietors of the New Zealand Herald, for £6OO damages, before Mr Justice Fair and a jury. Mr North, for the defence, said it was a case of national importance and the jury had to consider the right of a person to speak forcibly and freely on the conduct of people in an illegal and unlawful transaction. If any of Ihe jury were supporters of the present Government then they, more than any others, would be seriously concerned. Mr Johnstone, counsel for Matthews, objected to this argument and asked what politics had to do with the case. His Honor agreed that Mr Johnstone was more or less justified in objecting. Mr North referred to the industrial legislation and said that there was no use having organised groups taking the law into their own hands. PUBLIC LIFE The Herald had attacked Matthews | in his public life, not his private life, j Everyone knew union secretaries were I powerful personalities and able to en- J force things which they thought right i for their member*.

Matthews had said, in effect, “You won’t get justice from the Arbitration 'Court.” Counsel asked if that did not strike the jury as hitting everything that was decent in public life. Matthews’ reference to Magistrate Paterson was a foul and dangerous attack, said counsel, who referred to; the fact that Matthews did not enter I the witness box. | “Was this because he knew the; things he had said and done justified j the criticism brought down on his I head in the article complained of?” Mr North asked. Addressing the jury Mr Johnstone said they could not but be impressed by the defamatory quality of the words in the article complained of. Counsel submitted that Matthews was not a public man but a union secretary. The public men were the politicians. ! Defendant had to prove all the words i true, that Matthews was a demagogue j and that he gulled the men or duped ■ them. It was not proved that he used his powers in an improper manner or to obtain power himself. it W as submitted that theie was no evidence that Matthews incited or approved the conduct of the drivers in refusing work. The judge addresses the jury this afternoon. Evidence was given yesterday, by Leslie Knox Munro, editor of the Herald. He was cross-examined by Mr Johnstone for the defence.

PLAYING ON FEELINGS Mr Johnstone: What justification had you for saying that the plaintiff was a demagogue? Witness: I considered that he was a demagogue, because jn respect of statements which I have mentioned in my evidence I believed he was playing on the feelings of the men. Continuing, witness said that when Mr Matthews said that deregistration by the Government was a case of "wielding the big stick,” “submerging the grievances of the men." and that the employers were "assisted by the Government. - ’ he considered (here was nothing more calculated to incite ihe feelings of the men. Witness was cross-examined by Mr Johnstone on his interpretation of various statements made by the plaintiff early in 1944. In his opinion, de-regis-tering the union was an important decision taken by the Government against the union, because it had been party to an illegal strike. DISCUSS ISSUES He did not see where the “dictates of the employers" came into the question—it was the Government which had carried out this action, and there was no evidence before witness that the employers had assisted. In re-examination by Mr Richmond, witness said lie would take “wielding the big stick" to mean intimidation by a man who was using unlawful means. This concluded the case for the defendant, and Mr Johnstone said he did not propose to call further evidence for the plaintiff. His Honor adjourned the hearing until this morning in order to discuss the question of issues with counsel in chambers. (Proceeding.)