ALLEGED DEFAMATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22721, 6 November 1935, Page 5

ALLEGED DEFAMATION

ARTICLE IN SOCIAL CREDIT JOURNAL ECHO OF MAYORAL ELECTION

(Peb United Tress Association) *>'-/""" 'AUCKLAND, Novembers. •Based upon an article published in Why, a journal devoted to the advocacy of the Douglas Social Credit plan, William : M'Laren, ex-president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, in the Supreme Court to-dayV claimed from Albert Edward Robinson, editor of the journal, £SOO, alleging defamation of character. The action came before Mr Justice Callan and a jury, Mr Haigh and Mr Henry appeared for the plaintiff arid-Mr 7 Goulding and Mr Sexton for the,defendantV ,_ .".'.,-. "■' i ,.v;"j

|Mr Haigh .said the action arose out , of: the publication of an article in the newspaper Why in its issue of April 27, 1035.: After stressing ; the importance of...'.the value of a person's good, character andjreputation, Mr Haigh said that the plaintiff M'Laren had brought the action for the purpose of; clearing his character «from the imputations contained'in tlie article. The article, which extended to two columns; was headed f^Whp'Should be Mayor of Auckland?" ".Is.-the-; Labour Party Running a JSlumer?" 'v V Haigh. said that at the time the article: was'published M'Laren was president .of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, and was naturally prominent in industrial matters in Auck%pd .and in'the^activities: of the:LabOur jparty.j \ln these activities became into contact on with Mr Ernest tKSre wai. a .'Free*. Speech tCouricil in Alucldarid;? and-a. meeting was held in Beresfqrd street. Six men were arrested, land tlie; question of haying the men failed out arose/ M'Laren was communicated, with arid asked to go to the office, of Mr Davis. M'Laren went there shortly after noon and met. Mr Davis and two others, Roy Stanley and Fred Loom.: Mr. Davis mentioned that the Question of bail for'the six men had been raised and that the sum of £3OO |was required. He said that Stanley and Loom ; were unknown to him, but -they had approached him, and he (Mr Davis),, wanted to , know.; if JVPLaren would accept the money and arrange hail. .M'Laren demurred at first, and .'lie. Stanley, and Loom adjourned to another .room to. discuss the matter. Stanley and'Loom impressed'upon M'Laren the fact that if the money was not accepted the arrested men would have to remain in gaol over the week-end. The three then returned to Mr Davis and the £3OO \ras produced and handed to M'Laren. ■■* ■ -.-■-. „ ,/ Mr Haigh said the municipal selecwere held in April, and there; were three • F. Davis,,'J. Sayegh arid A. J. Stal I worthy.'; Sejyeral candidates Mere: in the ballot conducted bjfc'fhe.: Labour- Party and they included MrZH.-C.;R. Mason and Mr Sayegh. Mr .Sayegh: was,successful at the ballot.. Fo-l-1 owing the announcement that Mr Sayegh badrbeen:selected.as the Labour candidate' for the mayoralty the article which farmed the -basis of the present action was;published; It was not denied that tlie defendant Robinson, the editor of Why, nad'written the article. Tlie article " wasjbrouglit under the noticelpf M'Laren jtjnt after publication. M'Laren went to' pee Robinson' and •hini that the ! article accusedvhim (M'Laren) of bribery and i corruption and- was injuring his reputation:..' Robinson asked what portion,: andsSl'Laren said, "The whole of it." M'Laren asked for a public apology, and Robinson replied; "That is nothing to what* I've'got on.you." Robinson refused to give ari apology. On June 18, Mr -Haigb; said he -was/instructed by M'Laren to write to Robinson requesting an apology, but it was not forthcoming, and later the .present proceedings were ■instituted.. Mr Haigh said that the word "stumer" meant, something 'containing' 'dishonesty, and he quoted from a late dictionary which defined "stumer" as a slang word of unknown origin, meaning a sham, such as a-dforged cheque. • / ~ rtHfeHonbr:-A "stumer;" I take itj isia : sham,,;.a, pretence. Haigb: That is so. ■ /,/' .<•.,'/ His Honor: Supposing the meaning of

tiiis whole;JibQitf" Party organised a scheme in putting up 9 a candidate whom" they did not .expect to win because they considered that Mr Dayja, friendly..to,them, would nojK that' be a political sham? to this article there" was a sham so far as the leaders of the Labour Party were concerned. The article implies that there was no intention to put Mr Sayegh in as Mayor, hut so far as the rank and'file of Labour iiere c concerned the whole thing was bona v -ifide/ The leaders were, therefore, mis-:leading-the rank and file. Counsel said ■tliat M'Laren had-taken the money, but he found, that two of the arrested men had been bailed out. On the Monday iinorning the £IOO not required was returned by M'Laren to Mr Davis. Subsequently, when the men had been'dealt with by the court, M'Laren returned the ho question at any time of M'Laren retaining any" of the money. The article ; that the Labour Party had put up Mr Sayegh as its candidate knowing that he had no chance of being elected and to ensure the election of

Mr Davis, who would be friendly to the iparty.:' ' • _ • , M-Laren gave evidence of making the tail arrangements for the men concerned jn the Free Speech Council meeting, and jsaid the money was returned to Mr jpayis, who said he had been approached regarding the matter. After 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 actrons, but he felt 'hat the contents of the Particle "affected his status when lie "was defeated in July as president of the organisation. ' ' , v^ Cross-examined, the plaintiff denied that, he had been, principally concerned with "the statement attributed to him about "Communists." This,was untrue, as was also the statement attributed to Mr Davis about not caring whether, the money was lost. Robinson claimed that he had no intention of injuring witness, M'Laren added. He did not have a vote iki the Labour ballot. The selection was

in the hands of the delegates' to the Labour Representation Committee. He said there had been a " hue and cry" when it was known that Sayegh topped the selection ballot, and there were inquiries from headquarters in Wellington. His Honor: They came up to say: " What have you been doing to Mason? " Mr Goulding: Had there been a mayoral contest between Mason and Sayegh alone, what would your view of "the result be? Witness: It would all depend who had the official backing of the Labour Party machine. Witness said he was aware that Why was published in the interests of the Douglas credit movement, but he was not far advanced in the opinions of the movement. His Honor: If we could get an expert in the stand to explain the system I would listen to him.

Witness agreed that the purpose of the paper was to attack those persons commanding money. - Evidence was given by two waterside workers that the article caused considerable comment about the plaintiff, and one said he thought he had been "somewhat under a cloud" on the waterfront. Mr Goulding moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that the words in the ordinary sense were not defamatory or the plaintiff personally, and that the innuendoes alleged were not the natural, reasonable or necessary inferences to be drawn.

His Honor said any suggestion of the inference that the plaintiff received bribes could not be supported, and Mr Haigh agreed to withdraw this allegation. Prefacing the evidence for the defence Mr Goulding said it had to be shown for the claim that the article actually pointed toward M'Laren in the way suggested. There was also the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest.

The defendant, Albert Edward Robinson, secretary to the Auckland, provincial branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, said that M'Laren first'approached him as a fellow-unionist and claimed that the article would put an end to his industrial career. Witness then said he had kept from the article material which might have been injurious to;the plaintiff and he contended that the complaints were not about the truth of the article. No apology was deriianded, although witness offered to give what satisfaction he could.. ;.".' '-'',,'"'.-' ■■->',

Cross-examined* Robinson, said he considered there was corruption in politics in New Zealand, and he had written articles to that effect. ■A«ked 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 Mason but of the way. His suspicions were not convictions; but one suspicion was that a majority of the party preferred Davis to Sayegh as Mayor. He thought the Trades Hall ran the Labpur Party, meaning the leaders. The rank and file might not know, that Sayegh was not wanted- as Mayor. ,' The case was adjourned.