ALLEGED LIBEL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 25 November 1924, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBEL

HOWARD ELLIOTT V. NEW ZEALAND WORKER lUmiKil i'tiioß Aimocmuon.) WELLINGTON, This Day. ‘ The case Howard Elliott versus New Zealand Worker, a claim for £IOO damages tor alleged libel, was commenced before Mr Page, S.M., to-day. The libel was alleged to he contained in the report of a speech by Mr Holland, M.P., published in the Worker. The article was headed "Mr Howard Elliott’s attack on the King, and contained, inter alia, the following alleged false and defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff: (a) Air Howard Elliott, a man who did not hesitate to attack the King and His throne in language which if used by the New Zealand Worker or the Grey River Argus, would land the editor in the dock ; (b) Air Upward Elliott is the very last, man who is entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man; (c) disloyalists and seditionists of the Howard Elliott type; (d) over and over again Air Howard Elliott could -have been reached by the daws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government hail cared to move; (e) his (meaning tbe plaintiff’s) attack on the King is the culminating point- of his seditionary wildness.

Air Watson, in opening liis address for plaintiff, said Elliott's character as a private citizen was immune from attack, but any libel impugning his fitness was a serious matter. If charges of dishonesty, disloyalty, and sedition were shown to be founded plaintiff was unfit to hold a public position. If they were false then defendants should be mulcted in damages. The’ case was taken to vindicate Elliott’s character. The paper was widely circulated and exercised no doubt a well influence on its readers. The article purported to l> e a report’ but he submitted it was a. contributed article supplied by Holland from his notes after a meeting. It was thus an editorial article. An attack wag made m the House by Mr Holland, who said that Elliott was disloyal and should be in the dock on account of disloyalty. Elliott asked Holland to repeat tie charges where he would not be proticted by Parliamentary privilege. The radicle in the Worker was apparently HolUnd’s reply. There cbuld be only one interpretation of the statements complained of. Plaintiff clamed' that it was a‘direct charge of sedition coupled with a sinister insinuation that there was some power protecting Elliott from prosecution. The charges might be construed as a deliberate attempt to ruin the reputation of plaintiff and destroy his livelihood. The whole of the stitements of the defendants were allegations of fact, and dot comment or criticism. Air Alyers contended that the s&4call*d article was a report of Holland’s speech. He said the character of a man who took up the attitude of plaintiff, holding the position he did and seeking to guide the community, was a matter of grave public interest. Such a man must be open to receive attacks. Elliott had never hesitated in his attack against the Roman Catholic Church in associating the Political Labour Partyin those attacks. Air Wayson, for plaintiff, had submitted that* there was no charge as to raising the sectarian issue that the Court was not concerned with that and the matter was quite irrelevant. Mr Alyers said that- plaintiff had not hesitated in the mast virulent and violent attacks oil the Catholic Church to couple the Labour Party with the Church and to single out Holland in tile matter, lie also referred to two articles in the New Zealand Sentinel. Elliott published an article on “The King’s Visit- to the Vatican: A Blunder and Discourtesy,” which lie contended contained offensive remarks concerning the King. In another issue of the Sentinel, under the title “The King’s Visit to the Vatican” appeared a further article stated to bo a letter from Baron Porcelli to Elliott. If anything appeared in the •Sentinel—a- necessary assumption was that it was published* in'the sanction of Elliott. These articles were the ground work of Holland’s speech. Holland said the person who wrote or allowed to be published such letters was seditious and disloyal. Who, reading such a letter, said Air Myers, could come to any other conclusion? He submitted that every word Holland had used was justified as fair comment. Referring to the allegation of dishonesty Air Alyers referred to-the well-known easel in Auckland in which Elliott had been described by a magistrate as having viielv slandered a dead woman. “If a man,” said Air Alyers, “I care not who he is, vilely slanders a dead woman as Howard Elliott did under the circumstances under which he did it, lie is the very last man in the world entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man.” Air Alyers then referred to the report of Mr Bishop, S.AI., to the effect that plaintiff had fabricated letters intended to trap s postal officials. These letters were the vilest possible letters any man could possibly write. “Has a man who would do things like that a character and reputation to lose? I submit that it is fair comment to make of such a man that he is the last person entitled to impugn tho honesty of anybody else.”