Service at Anzac.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17348, 20 December 1919, Page 9

Service at Anzac.

Colin B a An «? T ?i corporal, said he enEgypt and GaUl - . He left with the Main Body, and was in the first landing at Galhpoh. He was there about five months, and was sent to England, where he was employed as a nursing orderly. He returned here in 1918. He was now' employed as wardmaster at the hospital ' Cross-examined: He was unaware of there being any feeling in the hospital that active service men should hold staff appointments. George Albert Gibb, Major, Deputy. Assistant Director of Medical Services headquarters, Wellington, said he had 31 years experience. He had to make periodical visits to soldiers' hospitals The Department had consented to the present action being brought. The work of the men at, the hospital was entirely satisfactory. He took great exception to the letter, and said it was untrue that any'of the plaintiffs had gained their promotions by being qualified to play in the Hospital Band. Most of the plaintiffs had not been allowed to go to the front, because, of slight disabilities. In addressing the jury, counsel for the p.ainfciffs said a letter had been sent to "T. C.. Wilson," but had been returned through the Dead Letter Office. A letter was sent to the newspaper « proprietors' solicitor, asking for an apology and retraction of the statement, but" this was not given, although an offer was made to allow space in the paper for an explanation. Counsel submitted that if " fair comment" was to be pleaded, it was essential for the contents of the article to be proved true, and he claimed that the newspaper took no steps whatever to prove Ihe truth or otherwise of the contents of the letter. Thirteen of the men had been across the seas, and the others had done their best to go, but had been refused. Contentions lor the Defence. Counsel for the defence said the letter was published in the ordinary course of business, and from a sense of public duty. He claimed that the allegation in the letter ,_ that some of the men had never been in the fighting area,. was true, and submitted that the writer of the letter meant by the " fighting area," the actual firing line, and only a few of the plaintiffs had been actually in the firing line. • • Counsel analysed the letter atiength, and submitted that many of the positions at the hospital were light and could be as well performed by wounded or, disabled men as by the plaintiffs. Hp suggested that in writing the letter Wilson • was actuated by a desire to attack the principle of not appointing active service men to easy positions, and not with any desire to attack the staff itself, against whom he had nothing. In conclusion, counsel submitted that there was nothing defamatory in the article, and that in publishing the letter the paper was only offering fair comment, and it was the editor's bounden duty to give the correspondent the opportunity of stating his opinion. It was agreed that the following issues should be submitted to the jury :—(1) Did the letter refer to the plaintiffs? (2)lf so, did it refer to them in the way of their occupation? (3) Did the letter mean that none of the men had been on active service with the New Zealand ExpeditionarForce or otherwise in the late war? (4) Did it mean that the plaintiffs had shirked or by improper means avoided being despatched on active service? (5) Did it mean that the plaintiffs were unfit or unqualified to hold their positions at the hospital? (6) Is the letter defamatory? (7) If so, of which of them is it defamatory? (8) Is the letter fair comment? (9) Was the letter published maliciously ? (10) Are the plaintiffs, or any of them, and if so, which of them, entitled to recover any damages from the defendants? (11) If any of the plaintiffs are entitled to recover any damages to • what damages are they entitled? • The Judge summed up this evening.