DAMAGES AWARDED

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 12014, 17 December 1924, Page 6

DAMAGES AWARDED

ELLIOTT V. “H.Z. WORKER" MAGISTRATE GIVES JUDGMENT IN LIBEL CASE. INTERESTING COMMENT. Judgment for plaintiff, awarding £lO damages, was given by Mr E. ■ Page, S.M., yesterday in the action for libel brought by the Rev. Howard Elliott against the “New Zealand Worker” Printing and Publishing Company and the publisher, John Glover, hearing of which attracted considerable attention recently. The plaintiff, well-known as the Dominion organiser of the Protestant Political Association, claimed £IOO damages for alleged libel contained in what purported to be a report of an address by Mr H. E. Holland. M.P., published m the “Worker” of July 30th last. It was alleged 'that the article in question contained, inter alia, the following alleged false and defamatory references to the plaintiff:— “(a) . , . Mr Howard Elliott . a man who did not hesitate to attack the King on his Throne in language which, if used by the ‘New Zealand Worker,’ or the ‘Grey River Argas,’ would land the editor in the dock. “(b) . . . Mr Howard Elliott is the very last man who is entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man. “(c) Disloyalists and seditionists of the Howard Elliott type. “(d) Over and over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached by the laws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government had cared to move. . “to) His (meaning the plaintiff’s) attack on the King is the culminating point of his seditionary wildness. “(f) I have presented Mr Howard Elliott as seditionary and disloyal.” Prominent members of the local organisation of the Labour Party were present when judgment was delivered by the magistrate, as follows: — PLAINTIFF MUST HAVE VERDICT. “I am of opinion that the plaintiff must have a verdict. l “The action is one claiming damages against a newspaper, ‘The New Zealand Worker,’ and against the publisher thereof for libel. “The article complained of is an account in defendant’s issue of July 30th. 1924, of a speech delivered at the Empress Theatre, Wellington, on July 29th, 1924. by Mr Holland, Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. The speech is devoted mainly to a criticism of the actions and the published utterances of the plaintiff, who is a Baptist minister, and is the Dominion organiser and national lecturer for a political organisation known as the Protestant Political Association, i “Publication of the article is admitj ted. ' “Certain passages in it are clearly defamatory TWO GROUNDS OF DEFENCE. “Two grounds of defence are raised; the first being that the defamatory passages are fair comment on a matter of public interest, and the second heing that the allegations contained in the defamatory passages are in fact true, and are therefore not libellous“With -regard to the first ground, I think that the utterances of an organiser of a- political association, published in the official organ of such association are matters of public interest, and that fair comment on such utterances is protected. The matter defended as comment must, however, be comment only, and not assertions of fact. The defence of fair comment is concerned with expressions of opinion as distinguished from assertions of fact. NATURE OF FAIR COMMENT. “Some of the defamatory passages in the present article do not profess to be, and are not, in my view, expressions of opinion. “For example, the passage, ‘Over and over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached by the laws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government had cared to move,’ does not, as it is placed in the article, appear to me to be comment. It purports to be a statement of fact. “I think, therefore, that the defence of fair comment on a matter of publio interest cannot he maintained. “With regard to the second ground of defence, namely, the contention that the allegations complained of are in I fact trne, the defendants rely, for j j proof of the truth of the allegations j on the contents pf certain articles and I pamphlets published by or with the | concurrence of the plaintiff, and on certain ether matters elicited from the plaintiff in cross-examination or proved nt the hearing relating to the plains tiff’s ■ past actions. “BITTER INTOLERANT. ATTACKS.” “Passages in these articles and pamphlets are- bitter, intolerant sectarian attacks on the adherents of anj other church. They are calculated to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects, and some of them are, in my opinion, seditious within the meaning of section 118 of the .Crimes Act, 1908. ! “The law with reference to the defence of justification requires, however, that in order to succeed the defendant must prove the truth of all the allegations complained of. DEFENCE FALLS SOMETHING SHORT. “After a careful consideration I am of opinion that the evidence for the de fence falls something short of this, and that therefore the second defence has no been established. “Looking at the whole of the circumstances, I propose to award the plaintiff the sum of £lO by way of damages, with costs on that amount." Judgment was entered for plaintiff ior that, with costs £4 18s. At the hearing Mr G. G. Watson ; appeared for the plaintiff, Mr M. Myers, K.C., for defendant, “New Zealand Worker,” and Mr H. F. O! Leary for defendant Glover.