LABOR LEADER LIBEL ACTION.

North Otago Times, 4 May 1911, Page 4

LABOR LEADER LIBEL ACTION.

The hearing was concluded at Liverpool assizes on February 18 of the libel action in which Mr James Sexton, J.]',, general secretary of the National Union of Dock Laborers, sought damages from the Northern Publishing Company, Ltd., and Mr Frank Pearce, organiser of the National Union oi Ships' Stewards, Cooks, Bakers and Butchers, the publishers and author respectively of a pamphlet which it was alleged contained libellous statements on plaintiff. The pamphlet was issued after the conviction bf James Larkin for conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences from dock workers in Cork, and what was complained of was that it contained suggestions that plaintiff conspired with employers of labor in Cork to engineer the prosecution against Mr Larkin. Mr Langdon, K.C., counsel for the Northern Publishing Company, said that the case was at an end so far as his clients were concerned. The company was owned by a gentleman well known and respected in Liverpool, He received a pamphlet in the ordinary course of business as a printer. It was read by his manager, who came to the conclusion that it was one he might fairly and properly print for a customer, He had no conception that it contained anything reflecting on Mr Sexton,

and it was published. His (counsel's) client had heard the evidence given by Mr Sexton and his witnesses, and bad accepted it as evidence of truthful and honest men, Under these circumstances, he regretted the passages in the pamphlet to which exception had been taken, and he 'desired to express his regret that his company should have published the libellous statements. Asa gentleman, he felt he ought to do what was right in regard to Mr Sxton, and had agreed to pay a sum to cover the 'damage and costs Mr Sexton had sustained, so far as the Northern Publishing Company were concerned, and they withdrew every imputation that might be he contained within the pamphlct.H Mr Taylor, K.C., counsel forplaM till, accepted this withdrawal, imS remarked that it would be a wiH drawal of the record so far as iH Northern Publishing Company '\ver~ concerned, i

His Lordship: lam not sure we can do that. You have not told me whether the action is to proceed as against the other defendant, Mr Taylor: Yes, my Lord. His Lorship : Then I am afraid we cannot do it in the form of the withdrawal of the record; but it is easy by the Judge's order. As the action is going to proceed as between the plaintiff and the other defendant, I only say that I think the company have acted in a most proper manner. They have taken excellent advice from Mr Langdon, and they have to a certain extent rehabilitated, themselves in the conduct of their business. They have shown they are honorable men. On Air Lindon Riley (counsel for Pearce) rising, his Lorship remarKed: "1 understand yon are instructed to fight to the end, Mr Riley ?" Mr Lindon Riley : Yes, my Lord ; and I only say with regard to the utner observations — fib Lordship : No, no. I cannot have observations made upon the conduct of the other defendant. Mr Lindon Riley: il was only hoping I might possibly have had some assistance from your Lordship in making dn end of a case with regard to the/defendant.

The Court then proceeded to hear the evidened of several witnesses from Cork in support of the plaintiff's case against Pearce. For the defence, James Larkin, who now lives in Dublin, and is general secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, was called, {lis evidence had chiefly to do with his relations with Mr Sexton, • and he was not cross-ex-amined, ! '] Mr Lindon Riley, in his address to the jury, contended that in the pamphlet the -author did not exceed the limits of fair comment, althougn here and there it might be there was a little coloring to inflame the imagination of the reader. The pamphlet was a beatification of Larkin, not a denunciation of Mr Sexton. ■lt was not a comparison between Larkin and Sexton', but a statement that the 'dock workers of Ireland had selected Larkin.

Mr Taylor, K,C, asked the jury to give Mr Sexton substantial damages because the pamphlet was addressed to the men whose servant he was,

a.iu an allegation of intriguing with the employers was thei most deadly that could be made against a man in Mr "Sexton's position. The jury found a verdict for plalnt'K, and , awarded him £2OO damage 3' ' • .. :. :JJJ||