ALLEGED LIBEL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19836, 8 July 1926, Page 6

ALLEGED LIBEL.

ELECTION AFTERMATH. A CANDIDATE’S CLAIM. ACTION AGAINST P.P.A. MEMBER. (Per United Pbess Association.) AUCKLAND, July 7. Mr Justice Stringer and a special jury are occupied in the Supreme Court in hearing an action involving a claim of £■6ooo for damages by Alfred Hall-Skelton, barrister and solicitor, against Henry Hastings Seahrook and Thomas Farrell, a printer, for alleged libel in printed matter printed during tho election campaign of 1925. Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr Inder are counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr G. W. Finlay and Mr Rogerson for the defendants. The alleged libel was contained in a circular of the Protestant Political Association, signed by Seahrook aa president of the Roskill group, in which the parliamentary candidates were Mr V. H. Potter and Mr Hall-Skelton. It was stated in the circular T that Mr Hall-Skelton’s declared ambition was to smash the P.P.A., and that the declaration would no doubt secure the Roman Catholic vote. The following is quoted from the circular. —“It cannot be forgotten that Mr Hall-Skelton acted as representative of a party which is seeking to disintegrate the British Empire, and has publicly eulogised Michael Collins, who was the leader of a gang of atrocious murderers, and who was condemned to be hanged for crimes against the Empire Thoughtful men and women who recall such things cannot really choose as their representative a man who has manifested sympathy with those who, when the Empire was in the throes of a struggle for life, was engaged within it in a policy of murder, to hinder the prosecution of the Great War, and to secure its overthrow.” Plaintiff contended that the circular, in fact, meant that ho was disloyal. and in sympathy with_ murderers. A second cause of action concerned alleged matter in the New Zealand Sentinel, which, plaintiff claimed, set him out as being disloyalthat he was the representative of and identified with and in sympathy with persons who held murder a sacred duty, and who wore engaged in treasonable practices.

On the first claim plaintiff for £2OOO damages, and on the second £3OOO as damages. The defence is a denial of publication; that the words complained of were ' not intended to mean what was alleged, nor that they have any defamatory meaning; that the words complained of were not libel; that tl)e words, taken in their natural meaning, so far as they stated facts, were true in substance and in fact; that the opinions or comment were fair and honest criticism, and in the public interests without malice; further, that publication was privileged and that defendant sustained no damage. Sir .Tohn Findlay, In opening for plaintiff, said he did not think the case would give the Jury much difficulty. Mr IlallSkelton had practised as a barrister and solicitor in Auckland for many years, and the defendants were in business in the city. The defendant, Farrell, was more or less a technical defendant. There was no grudge against Farrell. The matter of printing and publishing was not. contested. It was unfortunate (hat a certain element of sectarianism grossly disfigured the action. The defendant Seabrook was president of the Koskili group of the P.P.A. During his campaign Mr Skelton studiously avoided any reference to the P.P.A. or Seabrook. but on the. other hand Seabrook, two or three days before the election, fired a foul shot that .was malignant in its entirety. It was the circular mentioned which contained wild and bitter words. Shortly after the election Seabrook was convicted for a broach of the Electoral Act. Not content with this violent and bitter attempt, when the plaintiff had no chance, or the legal right of reply, Seabrook printed and published on the same day an extract from the New Zealand Sentinel. The jury was not dealing with an irresponsible man. It was the settled policy of Seabrook, because three years before he had done the same thing. Here was a man who dipped his hands in the most vitriolic stuff he could and displayed energy In distributing his efforts among people. It was Important to note that when malice amounted to almost a crime the jury should find heavier damages. Here there was long and cool deliberation that left Seabrook no escape. He showefl great Interest In a house-to-house canvass of two circulars. He then showed his devotion to the cause by attending political meetings and saw that every person going in got one of the circulars. The generosity ho displayed in this matter was almost amazing, said Sir John. Dealing with the defence, counsel said that after denying the words were published, the opposing counsel went on to say that the words that wore published were true and fa r and honest criticism and comment, and were published without malice. The really meant that it was hopeless for Senbrook to rely on it. Among the witnesses to-day was Ui ,e plaintiff Hall-Skelton, who detailed his activities’ during the war in recruiting work and in the National Reserve. When he was about to enlist he received a telegram from Sir James Align begging him to carry on with his work. Explaining the effect of the alleged libel, ho said that up to 19<J his business had been successful and that his gross takings that year were over £4OOO. After that they dwindled. He had been boycotted and people would not witn him in his lodge, and when he tried to join different associations he found various matters were brought un and that he was avoided. “I believe, ho said, that Collins did more by his death for the Tree State than oven his life. It did much to lessen the evil influence of De Valera. He was a student,” said the witness, and he know that a separated Ireland would be bankrupt in three months. When shown different documents claiming to have been published by the Self-Determination for Ireland League, witness replied that he did not believe them to be official documents of the league. There were several different sections and he did not know much about that part of the organisation. His Honor; But you went away to represent them. . Witness: I went to take part m a move for reconciliation. His Honor: Then you must have known something about the organisation. “I did not know much about that, replied witness. . , Mr Finlay to plaintifl: How much money did you get out f of this chaotic organisation (meaning the Self-Determina-tion League for Ireland)? Witness: Oh; I think it came to about £IOOO , . „ Mr Finlay: For what form of Government had the people of Ireland voted when you were addressing meetings? Plaintiff replied he did not know. lie had not taken a great deal of interest in the history of Ireland subsequent to the war. He could not say that he had read all the cables. In reply to his Honor, plaintiff said a man like Michael Collins had to placate the strong section of the Republicans opposed to his views. Collins had told him that was the attitude he adopted. His Honor: What was the definition of self-determination? Plaintiff: It was to support the choice of a government on the lines of those in Australia and New Zealand. The' court adjourned until to-morrow.