ALLEGED LIBEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22260, 7 November 1935, Page 14

ALLEGED LIBEL

FAILURE OF ACTION STATEMENTS IN ARTICLE COMMENTS BY JUDGE A MAJORITY DECISION Tito action in which William McLaren, former president of tho Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, claimed £SOO for an alleged libel , in the publication Why?, arising out of the Auckland mayoral election in May, was concluded yesterday before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury, in the Supremo Court'. Defendants, for whom judgment was given, were A. 11 Robinson, as editor of tho publication, Farming First, Limited, proprietors, and the Queen City Press, printers. Mr. Haigh and Mr. Henry appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Goulding and Mr. Sexton conducting the defence. Addressing the jury for the defence, Mr. Goulding said any allegation of bribery, concerning plaintiff' as a Labour leader, and tho supposed inference that Labour leaders were in favour of Mr. Ernest Davis as Mayor of Auckland, instead of Mr. .T. Saycgh, as tho nominee of the party, had disappeared from tho case. In view of this, he proposed to call no further evidence for tho defence. The allegations in tho pleadings were difficult, and the law concerning defamation such as was alleged was contained in the article written by Robinson had to be understood clearly. It was for the jury to consider the meaning of tho article. Purpose oi Article Mr. Goulding said tho jury must be satisfied that the statements complained of referred to plaintiff. The defence was that tho article was not defamatory in any part, and was nob written concerning McLaren. If tho jury believed the statements applied to McLaren, there was tho defence of justification, in that tho statement's were true, and tho further defence of fair comment could be found. Newspapers were entitled to criticise men in public office. While the comment might be derogatory, it did not follow that it might not be fair. Counsel invited the jury to consider tho purpose of tho article, and ho said tho publication Why? held strong views in attacking the existing monetary system. As a wholo, the article was an adverse criticism of Mr. Davis and his candidature for the mayoralty. Thero was nover an attack on McLaren, who, in connection with the question as to whether the Labour Party was "running a stumer" over the election, was by no means that organisation. Any comment on tho Labour Party could not apply directly to McLaren. Submissions For Plaintiff Mr. Haigh said no writer could escape a judgment for libel because the offence could not bo pinned down to particular words or sentences. He suggested that Why? contained a gross libel against Mr. Davis, and tho article showed tho type of man Robinson was in trying to besmirch his opponents, in this case, Mr. Davis, a man with money. Mr. Haigh asked whether the article conveyed to reasonable people the impression that Labour people were putting forward Mr. Sayegh as candidate for Mayor, instead of Mr. H. G. R. Mason, M.P., so that Mr Davis could win. That would be deceiving the rank and file of the party, and would mean disloyalty and secret treachery on tho part of leaders, among whom, it was contended, McLaren could be placed. ,Mr. Haigh thought the impression of the article was that of a " sinister conspiracy between Mr. Davis and tho Labour leaders," and, to support the suggestion that McLaren was hand in glove with Mr. Davis, the incident regarding the bailing of the men arrested in connection with the Free Speech Council meeting in Beresford Street, Newton, was introduced. Innocent Transaction Another submission by Mr. Haigh was that Robinson, in his evidence, had confirmed the suggestion of some sort of a conspiracy. Counsel thought a man must be hard put to it in making such allegations, and to introduce a simple, harmless transaction of 10 months before. That was the bail incident, which was obviously honest, and reflected nothing but credit on the persons concerned. Mr. Haigh said McLaren had been defamed in tho article, while it was also a gross attack on Mr. Davis. He asked for substantial damages to show that such a typo of libel would not bo tolerated in New Zealand. His Honor said the case was of considerable importance to those concerned. According to authorities, a statement was none 'tlio less defamatory because it was not intended to bo so. It would be only a careless, perverse or uncharitable reading of tho article which could cause any suggestion of tho bribery of McLaren to be interpreted, and even libellers were not responsible for a perverse misconstruction of what they had written. A Matter for the Jury Continuing, His Honor said a further submission for plaintiff was that tho article contained an accusation of treachery on the part of McLaren toward his own people, tho watersiders, and the rank and lilo of the Labour Party. Whether such a meaning could bo extracted from the article was a matter for tho jury. His Honor commented that libel cases had a curious resemblance. Tho first thing Robinson did was to ask McLaren to show what J was wrong, and Mr. Goulding had dono similarly when McLaren was in tho witness box. It was possible to feel instinctively that injury had been caused by a particular writing, and yet it might be extremely difficult to explain precisely why it was felt thero was an injury. The purpose of the articlo seemed to have been to do harm to tho candidature of Mr. Davis, said His Honor. The Court was not concerned with whom Robinson was aiming at, but whether ho hit McLaien. If in the course of trying to discredit Mr. Davis Robiiison had done harm to McLaren,- it did hot matter in tho least that the object of tho article was quite different. Justification was a defence, if tho facts were true. Thero were also limits to fair comment. A critic was not allowed, even with a public'man, to bo wrong in his facts. After a long retirement, tho jury returned a decision in favour of defendants by 10 to two. Judgment was granted defendants, with costs according to scalo and other costs requested.