A LIBELLOUS LETTER

NZ Truth, Issue 697, 26 October 1918, Page 5

A LIBELLOUS LETTER

CAPTAIN HAWKINS AND THE BAND

The Liquor Qaesta at Stratford

Damages Assessed at a "Fiver"

The gentlemen who take the platform for the Prohibition Party have a peculiar style of oratory. Generally, their speeches rely for effect, not on beauty of language or strength of logic, but wholly and solely on vehemence. It is truly a peculiar style of oratory, but it is highly popular with those who think that all our evils are DUE TO THE "FLOWING BOWL." To make a speech on lines which will please the old women who comprise the bulk of the rank and file of the Prohibition Party, it is necessary to use old woman methods and to exaggerate «41 statements, so that the epofcoh shall oontain the "hot stuff" whioh is the breath of life to the old gimlet ladies, To exaggerate facts and then to draw an inference or found an insinuation on such "ripe" faots is sui everyday trick of the Prohibition "spruiker." Recently a casual orator was pulled up at Stratford, Taranaki, well-known aa the place where you can't move about much without tripping over a cow or Mr. Newton King. This gent, was Captain W. H. Hawkins, a member of the N.Z.E.F., but now on duty m New Zealand. For a short time, he sat m Parliament, representing Pahiatua. At last general election he was put up against J. B. Hine, member for Stratford, but was defeated. A PROHIBITION "RALLY." Away back m the middle of June last, the captain visited Stratford to deliver a prohibition address, under the auspices of the W.C.T.U. The W.C.T.U. wanted a band to play m front of the hall and approached the Stratford Municipal Band, but the Stratford Band declined the engagement, and sweet music was therefore discoursed by the band from Kaponga, another cow settlement further m the backblocks than Stratford itself. In the course of the > meeting, Hawkins made reference to the absence of the Stratford Band, and m a day or two this reference was resented by the conductor of the band who wrote to the papers denying that, as Hawkins alleged, the band's action had been brought about through the INFLUENCE OF THE LIQUOR PARTY. Then Hawkins wrote to the Stratford "Post" to explain what he had said, and used the following words: "What I did say, was that the refusal of the Stratford Band (a public body subsidised by municipal and public funds) to play for a branch of a world -wide institution such as the W.C.T.U., even after the band's fee was guaranteed, constituted a public scandal. Furthermore, I stated that, knowing the liquor traffic's methods so well, I was quite sure, if it were possible to get behind the soenes, the slimy hands of the liquor traffic would be found. I also made some references to the traffic presenting bands with Instruments, drums, -etc., and striving m other ways, well-known to the intelligent public, to make the traffic's evil influence felt." Unfortunately for Hawkins, Cecil Arden, licensee of the Empire Hotel, had some time before PRESENTED THE BAND WITH A DRUM, and Arden took Hawkins's reference to be to himself; and at the Stratford Magistrate's Court on October 18 last, he proceeded against Arden to recover £90 damages for libel. Mr. A. H. Johnstone looked after Arden, and Mr. A. R. Atkinson (of Wellington), piloted Hawkins, Mr. Crooke being umpire. THE INJURED PARTY. Arden, m evidence, said that m September,. 1917, he presented to the band, a drum, for which he paid £7 15s. He saw Hawkins's letter and took the reference to be to himself. Subsequently the licensed victuallers of the town held a meeting and passed a resolution on the matter. Also, witness asked Hawkins, through his solicitor, to retract, but no reply was received to the letter sent to him. In answer to Mr. Atkinson, witness said that Fred Foley, licensee- of the Club Hotel, was present at the meeting of licensed victuallers and took part m the discussion. Witness denied counsel's suggestion that the action for libel was really on behalf of the whole "Trade," and that witness was only a nominal plaintiff. He reckoned the reference m the letter was to himself. Counsel wanted to know why Foley was not plaintiff m the action, but witness could only say that he (witness) considered himself the party attacked. Witness could not say if Malone (holder of a wholesale license) was a member of the band committee, but he knew Wilson, a member of the band, was a barman or hotel manager. Thereupon followed the following little dialogue between counsel and witness: Do you reckon you have suffered £90 of damage?— IT IS MY CHARACTER I am studying. Ninety pounds would not compensate you for the loss of your character? —No. Why was the amount fixed at £90? — I don't know, but I have a fair idea. So as not to go before a jury? — Yes. Have you lost much trade or sleep over the matter?— No. Were you feelings hurt? — Yes, a little. Would twenty shillings cover the hurt to your feelings? — No. Have any of your fellow-citizens shunned you because of the letter? — No. ■ Police Constable Tizard, a member of the band, testified that on behalf of the band he had asked Arden for a drum. He assured Mr. Johnstone that no compact of any sort was made be- . tween the band and Arden m consideration of his giving the drum. The only reason the band did not play at the meeting was that only nine members could be got together, and there was a shortage of soloists. Foley seemed to be Mr. Atkinson's chief worry, and he got what he could from Tizard about him. 1 Foley is a member of the band ? — I don't know that he is a member. He assists the band. He is the best cornetist? — Yes. There were two others m the band at the time, but both were otherwise engaged on that particular night. Do you suggest that Foley was not influenced by his liquor opinions on the matter of playing? — Foley would have his own reasons for not wishing i.o piny. The liquor question might have been one of them. Would you expect a publican TO PLAY AT A PROHIBITION MEETING? I — If I was a publican I would play. Did you speak to Foley on the mat- • ter? — At the meeting of the band I '■ did. i Did you hear him say: "The women i beat us by getting the Kaponga ' Band"? — No. Bandmaster Spurdle said that owing ' to not being able to get sufficient solo ' players, he had cancelled the band's ! engagement. The band were m favor ! oil playing. I To Mr. Atkinson, Spurdle said he j objected to questions on which people ! generally were keenly divided, being brought into the bandroom, as it tended to break up the band. Witness had to satisfy counsel's curiosity about , Foley. j

Had you any doubts as to whether the band should play at a temperance meeting?— Yes. Had Foley any doubts? — I don't know about Foley. Did you mention to Mr. Masters that Foley objected to taking the engagement? — No. We had other cornetists besides Foley. In opening the case for the defence, Mr. Atkinson was sharply pulled up twice for making the suggestion that Arden was merely a nominal defendant. Mr. Atkinson claimed that the statement complained of was absolutely genuine, fair, honest and non-mali-cious criticism. The &M,i Would you olaim that the term "slimy handa" ia fair comment f Mr. Atkinson: I would. I don't know exactly, what it means. The S.M.: I suppose it means dirty bands, Mr. Atkinson: I would not like to use the term m reference to an individual, but as regards the actions of the Trade generally, I should say it is a scientifically accurate description. HAWKINS IN THE BOX. Defendant, m evidence, said that When he made his speech he did not know Arden had given the band a drum. His experience of the "Trade" over twenty-five years had made him conclude that the "Trade" had something to do with the band not playing. The "Trade" always nobbled everything, and tried to nobble bands with gifts of instruments and perhaps a, case of beer at the annual meeting. ! Defendant spent a rather uncomfortable half-hour m conversation with Mr. Johnstone. Some of the remarks: You said m your letter that it was a public scandal that the band did not play. Did you make any inquiries as to why it did not play? — No. Can you tell us of other places where the "Trade" has presented a drum to a band? — I can't remember. It is a type of the things they do. Tell us of a case m your experience where the "Trade" presented an instrument to, a band? — It is a general tactic of the "Trade." The bandmaster asked you to apologise for what you said. Why didn't you do so? — To be perfectly frank, I did not believe him. He is a liar, then? — You can put it that way if you like. But your words mean that he is a liar? — I say, that HE IS DECEIVING HIMSELF. When did you find out that Arden had given a drum? — I didn't know before the meeting. After the meeting somebody said to me: "How did you know about the drum?" I said: "I didn't know. How extraordinary that I should make a statement like that." Counsel suggested that witness was not being candid with the court, which suggestion witness hotly resented. In closing his case, Mr. Johnstone said defendant had made no attempt to justify the words complained of. He accepted defendant's assurance that when he made his speech he did not know about Arden's gift of a drum, but that did not justify his action m failing to apologise when afforded an opportunity to do so. SMALL AND TRIVIAL. The Bench held the statement to be libellous. Counsel for defendant contended that defendant, m speaking of his general experience of the "Trade," had unconsciously libelled Arden; but defendant did not quote one case m his experience of the "Trade" presenting instruments to bands. It was a small and trivial case, and if it were not for the feeling on the liquor question, it woud never have been brought. Neither party could say anything too bad for the other — the feeling between the parties on the liquor question was as strong as the feeling between reLigious bodies. Plaintiff would be awarded £ 5 damages and costs.