LIBEL ALLEGED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22259, 6 November 1935, Page 16

LIBEL ALLEGED

iWATERSIDER'S CLAIM

MAYORAL ELECTION ECHO STATEMENTS IN ARTICLE "ACTION TO CLEAR CHARACTER" Alleging that thero were suggestions of manipulation concerning the Labour Party nomination for the Auckland mayoral election, in an article in the publication Why?, William McLaren, former / president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, wns the plaintiff in a libel action brought before Mr. Justico Callan and a jury in tho Supreme Court yesterday. Tho defendants cited were A. E. Robinson, as editor of the publication,' Farming First, Limited, newspaper proprietors, and the Queen City Press, The damages claimed were £SOO. Mr. Haigh and Mr. Henry appeared for plaintiff, and tho defence was in the hands of Mr. Goulding and Mr. Sexton. '• Mr. Haigh said the action was brought as a result of an article headed, "Who Should be Mayor of Auckland? Is the Labour Party Running a Stumor?" This appeared in the April 27 issue of Why? Plaintiff's purpose was to clear his character, in view pf the suggestions contained in the article. At the time of publication McLaren was president of the Waterside Workers' Union, and he was prominent in industrial and Labour Party activities in Auckland. On occasion, he came into contact with Mr. Ernest Davis, who was elected Mayor cf Auckland last May. Streßt Meeting Sequel A meeting held by tho Free Speech Council in Beresford Street, Newton, in July,' 1934, was recalled by Mr. Haigh. Six men wero arrested, and the question of securing their release on bail arose. McLaren was asked to go to the office of Mr. Davis, whom he met there. Two others, Roy Stanley and Fred Loom, wero presented. Mr. Davis mentioned that £3OO was required for bail. Thoj two men at his office were not known to him, but they had approached him, and ho wanted to know if McLaren would accept the money to arrange bail. McLaren demurred at first, said Mr. Haigh, but after conferring with the two' men, he accepted the money, which was handed to him by Mr. Davis. Plaintiff asked that the matter should be treated as confidential, and Mr. Davis said that was also his wish. Tho reason was to preclude any subsequent assumption of some conspiracy. It was now alleged that such an assumption had been made. Candidates For Mayoralty

There were three candidates for the Mayoralty—Mr. Davis, Mr. J. Sayegh and Mr. A. J. Stallwortby, M.P. Several candidates in the Labour Party's ballot for nomination included Mr. Sayegh and Mr- H. G. R. Mason, M.P. The basis of the action was in the article, which appeared shortly before the' election. Mr. Sayegh was nominated, and the "article referred to his position and the question of Labour support./ Mr. Haigh quoted passages from the article, one of which s?yd, "In speaking with business men who are supporting Mr. Davis the_ general impression I have received is that they are much interested in Mr. Davis' success than in the danger of Mr. Mason winning." The article went on to deal with the incident where plaintiff conferred with Mr. Davis about the bail, said Mr. Haigh, and there was a statement that the persons prosecuted were pot all bailed out with the money provided by Mr. Davis, but enough money was provided. "if the matter stopped at that it would be all to Mr. Davis' credit and I might not be writing this; Communists or not, had I had the money, I would have done as Mr. Davis did," the article proceeded. "It was the association Mr. Davis used, and his apparent' influence in circles so very different from the Coalition circles where he is admitted to have great powers, which aroused fierce suspicions in me." Alleged Conversation

Continuing, counsel said the article referred' to facts stated to have been obtained from a sworn declaration in the writer's possession. This matter " tended to show Mr. Davis had influ-

ence ill labour unions, which were among those who voted for Mr. Sayegh , to stand' in the interests of Labour, since that means to many that Mr. Mason was wanted out of the way." There was also a passage concerning the meeting in Mr. Davis' office, which said, "Mr. McLaren asked whether he was to carry any surplus about and ' risk being robbed, or what ? ' Mr. Davis replied, '* That's all right, Mac, I know you and can trust you, and if you do lose it, who cares? ' " The article also referred to the Auckland mayoralty as " the blue ribbon of local government; far more importance attaches to the Queen City mayoralty . 'than to a seat in Parliament." Mr. Haigh said McLaren twice approached Robinson and sought the publication of an apology, but this was declined. At the second interview, it was alleged, Robinson told McLaren it was nothing to what he " had on him." A solicitor's letter was sent to Robinson saying there was a serious imputation in/)tho article, which was a gross libel on McLaren, continued Mr. Haigh. Similar letters were sent to Farming First, Limited, and the Queen City Press, the latter replying that it had nothing to do with the contents of the paper. Robinson's solicitors wrote that they were not able to find anything in the article charging McLaren with corrupt practices or receipt of a bribe. Use oi Expression " Stumer " Mr. /Haigh said the full amount of tho bail was returned to Mr. Davis. Having done all he possibly could, McLaren found that tho enly thing to do was to bring the action to clear his character. It was a question of what the article conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable person. There was the word " stumer," used in the second headline. This suggested that the Labour Party was doing something which was not right in connection with the election. His Elonor: Are you going to show what "stumer" means? Would it be in an American dictionary? Mr. Goulding: I think it is English, a Cockney expression. Mr. Haigh said ho had an English dictionary which gave one meaning of the oxptession as a sham." Comment By His Honor Continuing, Mr. Haigh said McLaren did not retain any portion of the money. There was, .it was submitted, an obvious suggestion that Mr. Davis had an influence over the labour unions, and the article also expressed the view that Mr. Mason would have been returned over Mr. Davis. The only reasonable inference was that Mr. Mason was wanted out of the way. There was a passage in the article saying this about Mr. Sayegh:—" I know Mr. Sayegh. As a man he is all right; as the Mayor of Auckland, Mr. Sayegh is as npar to occupying tho mayoral chair in his shop opposite the Town Hall as he is over likely to get. Mr. Sayegh is not a speaker, not a contributor of bright ideas, not a forceful man, not the kind of man a prominent Jiolitical, party usually selects for such

an important contest. He should not have been nominated —it strikes me as an act of. brutality." i Hi? Honor: Reading this article it seems, Mr. Haigh, that Mr. Davis and Mr. Sayegh havo quite as much to complain about as your client. Mr. Haigh: That is so, Your Honor. McLaren gave evidence of making bail arrangements for the men concerned in the Free Speech Council meeting, and snid the money was returned to Mr. Davis, who said ho had been approached regarding the matter. Alter the article appeared, it was necessary to call a special meeting of the Waterside Workers' Union for witness to explain his position. The union then stood by his actions, but felt the contents of the article affected his status when he was defeated in July as president of the organisation. _ . . , Cross-examined, plaintiff denied he had been principally concerned with a statement attributed to him about " Communists." This was untrue, as was also the statement attributed to Mr. Davis about not caring whether the money were lost. Robinson claimed he had no intention of injuring witness. McLaren added that lie did not have a voto in the Labour ballot. Jlio selection was in the hands of tlio delegates to tho Labour Representation Committee. Ho said there had been a "hue and cry" when it was known Mr. Savegh topped the selection ballot, and there were inquiries from the headquarters in Wellington. His Honor: They came up to say, "What have you been doing to Mason?" Douglas Credit Paper, Mr. Goulding: Had there been a mavoral contest between Mr. Mason and Mr. Savegh alone, what would your view of the result be? Witness: It would all depend who had tho official backing of the Labour Party," the machine. Witness did not agree that Mr. Mason would have succeeded against Mr. Davis. He was aware that ''Why?" was published in the interests of tho Douglas Credit movement, but ho was not far advanced in the opinions of the movement. His Honor: If wo could get an export in the stand to explain tho system, I would listen to him. Witness agreed that the purpose of tho paper was to attack those persons commanding money. Evidence was given by two watersido workers that tho article caused considerable comment about plaintiff, and one thought he had been "somewhat under a cloud" on the waterfront. 31 r. Colliding moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that the words in the ordinary sense were not defamatory of plaintiff personally, and that the innuendoes alleged were not the natural, reasonable, or necessary inferences to be drawn. His Honor said any suggestion of an inference that plaintiff received bribes could not be supported, and Mr. Haigh agreed to withdraw this allegation. Contentions for Defence Prefacing the evidence for the defence, Mr. Goulding said it had to be shown for the claim that the article actually pointed toward McLaren in the way suggested. There was also the defence, in connection with tho remaining allegations that the impression of bad faith, . disloyalty or secret treachery toward tho union or tho Labour Party in the case of McLaren had been created, and that there was an inference of corrupt and improper practices, of fair comment on a matter of public interest. Defendant, Albert Edward Robinson, secretary to the Auckland provincial branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, said that McLaren first approached him as a fellow unionist, and claimed that the article would put an end to his industrial career. An attempt was made at the interviews to find the source of witness' information. Witness then said he had kept from the article material which might havo been injurious to plaintiff, and ho contended that the complaints were not about the truth of the article. No apology was demanded, although witness oifered to give what satisfaction he s could. Defendant Cross-examined Cross-examined, Robinson said ho considered there was corruption in politics in New Zealand, and he had written articles to that effect. Asked what his "fierce suspicions" were, he said they were that the Labour Party was "running* a stumer" in connection with the election, but, should the party have tried to get Mr. Davis in as Mayor, that would be its own business. His meaning was that some of the Labour people wanted Mr. Mason out of the way. His suspicions were not convictions, but ono suspicion was that a majority, of the party preferred Mr. Davis to Mr. Sayegh as Mayor,. He thought the Trades Hall ran the Labour Party, meaning the leaders. The rank and file might nob know Mr. Sayegh was not wanted as Mayor. The case was adjourned until this morning.