ALLEGED LIBEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21247, 29 July 1932, Page 12

ALLEGED LIBEL

POLICE OFFICER ATTACKED ■f 'CHARGES AGAINST TWO MEN JURY UNABLE TO AGREE JUDGE ORDERS NEW TRIAL Two men were charged in tho Supreme Court yesterday beforo Mr. Justice Herdman with defamatory libel of a polico officer, Inspector John Lander, of Well' ington. The accused were George Budd, aged 35, seaman, and Ernest Frederick Thompson, agent. The statements complained of, in a paper called War, had reference to a demonstration of unemployed that occurred in the grounds of Parliament House, Wellington, 011 September 16. Tlio charge was that the accused published on October 4 (o Detectives T. A. Sneddon and T. W. Allsopp the following defamatory libel:—"lnspector Lander, commanding tlio force which batoned the workers on the steps of Parliament House, ]ied and perjured himself when ho stated, during the Court proceedings, that ho was j not armed. Ho lied, as his masters, the 1 capitalist class, lie in their propaganda war against the workers. Call for the resignation of Inspector Lander, perjuring liar and attacker of defenceless men, women and children." The Crown Prosecutor said the document complained of had at its foot tho words: —"Mineographed by George Budd, for the Labour Defence League, 63 Newton Road, Auckland." It was highly inflammatory in its character, and he need hardly say that the words wero about as highly libellous as it was possible for them to be. At the close of a meeting of tho Labour Defence League on October 4 copies of these papers were handed to the people going out, among them being two police officers, by .the accused Thompson. Budd was the acknowledged printer. Evidence of Detectives Detective T. W. Allsopp gave evidence that in company with Detective Sneddon . he attended a meeting of the Labour Defence League on the evening of October 4. There were about 300 present. The pamphlets complained of were handed by Thompson to everyone leaving the hall, including witness. Witness picked out tho figure of Inspector Lander from h photograph handed to him by counsel. The piece of stick appearing in tho photograph was certainly not a police baton, and was probably a broken banner pole. Similar evidence was given by Detective Sneddon. Counsel said this charge was so rare <hat he had been unable to find in any book of legal history any prosecution for criminal defamation. 110 that a mistake had been made, and it was thought that "ono of these gentlemen carrying tho waddies in tho photograph was Inspector Lander. If it was a mistake these men should bo punished only for negligence. The accused Thompson, who made an affirmation in place of the customary oath, denied that ho had been handing out pamphlets at tho meeting on October 4. In cross-examination accused said ho •was born in Sweden, and had been in New Zealand about 30 years. He was a member of the Communist Party and had been itgr literary secretary for a period. He had distributed literature on other occasions. Ho lived at 63 Newton Road, where the Communist Party had engaged the two front rooms. A mineograph was in the front room. Anyone could work it, and various members had done so. Ho had worked it occasionally. Origin of Literature The Crown. Prosecutor: Where does this Commnnist literature come from ? Accused: Most of it is published in New (Zealand. ' Most of it comes from overseas, doesn t it?— From Sydney. _ , "That is your work, isn't it ?' asked the Crown Prosecutor, holding up a book to the accused. "Oh," ho replied, "I wondered where that book had gone to. I lost that from the library 12 months ago." How did this get into Now Zealand ? Off what' boats do you get it ?—I suppose anybody can bring it in, or send it through the post. Do you know that quite a lot of it has been brought in that way ? —I am aware that a man has been caught with some. And that it was to be delivered to you nt 63 Newton Road ?—I do not know. Accused admitted he had been prosecuted in Wellington under t the name of Johnston ,in 1921 for having prohibited literature in his possession, and lio had been in prison. He had been convicted in 'Auckland of encouraging lawlessness. Procedure at Meetings Gordon Harvey Dale, seaman, who also tnado an affirmation, said ho was at tlio disturbance at Parliament House and had seen Inspector Lander with a stick in his hand. ... /In cross-examination, witness saw no was at present serving six months in the Mount Eden prison for having in his possession literature inciting to lawlessness. He was a member of the Communist Henry Mornington Smith said the usual procedure at tho meetings of the Labour Defence League was for literature to bo placed on chairs or on a table, and not to bo handed out. Ho was a member of the Labour Defence League and had been an official of the Communist Party—a grpup leader. Answering the Crown Prosecutor, witmess said he lived at 63 Newton Road. Witness said ho came from England arid had been eight years in tho Dominion. He admitted ho had been convicted of inciting to lawlessness about the time of tho Norfolk Street eviction. Counsel for accused said the astonishing thing was that the magistrate had fiver permitted a prosecution for criminal libel. Inspector Lander had his remedy through civil action for libel. The Crown Prosecutor said tlio law of criminal libel had been brought in only in 1901, because it had been found necessary to restrain irresponsible and dangerous persons from libelling men in public positions. Judge's Summing Up His Honor described the case as a comparatively simple one. 'lhe statements against Inspector Lander were that he •was a liar," that he perjured himself, that be attacked defenceless men and women, it was open to the defence to seek to prove that the statements wero true, but they had not done so. If these words had /been published it would be absurd and impossible to suggest that they were not defamatory. Tho main defence was that these two men were not responsible for tho publication and distribution of tho paper. But there was tho direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thompson, and the name of Budd was lit the bottom of the paper. The real question, was, "Is this a defamatory libel referring to Inspector Lander 7 After 3£ hours' retirement the jury returned to ask if a verdict of publishing was found against Budd and of distributing against Thompson, would both be equally guilty? His Honor replied that if Budd published the libel, he was guilty, and if Thompson distributed the* libellous ■ document, he also was guilty. ' The impossibility of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman of the jury after a retirement of hours. His Honor discharged tho jury and said tho V; accused would be retried on Monday. "'No, I won't allow them bail," he told counsel. "Thoy can stay where they