ACTION FOR LIBEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26114, 29 March 1946, Page 6

ACTION FOR LIBEL

NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL UNION SECRETARY’S CLAIM DEFAMATION ALLEGED (P.A.) AUCKLAND, Mar. 28. The hearing of a claim by the secretary of the Auckland’ Drivers’ Union, Lawrence Gerard Matthews, for £6OO damages for alleged libel against Wilson and Horton, Ltd., publishers, was commenced to-day before Mr Justice Fair and a jury. The claim was based upon the words of a leading article published in the New Zealand Herald on September 12 last under the heading, “The Bus Strike." The plaintiff is represented by Mr A. H. Johnstone, K.C.. and Mr Haigh. while Mr H. P. Richmond and Mr North are conducting the' defence Basis of Claim The article complained of was in the following terms: — “ Irresponsibly inflicting wanton harm and inconvenience on the community, the bus drivers have gone on strike. If it is a case of apportioning the blame, the men who have foolishly followed their leaders are perhaps less at fault than the demagogues who hold the public to ransom. The strikers’ leaders have secured the chairman they wanted. It is notorious that there were other magistrates whose names they rejected. But, having the chairman of their choice, why strike? The answer is brief. The men have been gulled by the demagogues’ love of power. “ Chief among the leaders is Mr L. G. Matthews. , This man would ordinarily be of no significance in the community. There is no reason why 'he should be, save one—that he is a trade union secretary. As such, he enjoys an importance and influence only too obvious in the dispute. It is time for the Government to act. It is not sufficient for the Acting Minister of Labour to say that he can see no, earthly reason for the men stopping work. Everybody knows this, the powerful Mr L. G. Matthews not least. But a Government which constantly acts at a crack of the whip of union leaders should now act against them to preserve the rights of the community. “ There are sufficient vehicles and qualified drivers available to serve the public. Let the Government call on them and flout the command of the union that the truck drivers shall refrain from carrying passengers. ’ If it fails to act, then it will be only too obvious that the Government is powerlessi against Mr Matthews and the members of his union. The - community will know what to think of such weakness.’’ . The plaintiff alleged that this article had been falsely and maliciously published concerning the plaintiff and his occupation as a union secretary. It meant that the. plaintiff was chief among the leaders of the strikers, that he was actuated by a love of power, that he deceived the strikers and so brought about the strike. The plaintiff claimed that he had been greatly injured in his credit and reputation and in his occupation as a union secretary, and he therefore claimed £6OO damages and costs. Statement of Defence

In its defence, the company claimed that the words were incapable of any defamatory meaning. It further claimed that the words in their natural meaning and also in the meaning attributed to them by the plaintiff were true in substance and in fact. In so far as .they were expressions of opinion they were fair comment made in good faith and without malice upon facts published between January, 1944, and September 12,. 1945. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff had been a party to an unlawful strike and (or) had encouraged, incited, instigated, aided, and -abetted an unlawful strike. In his opening address, Mr Johnstone examined in detail the words of the article complained of, and submitted that they showed the warped mentality of the writer. According to the article, parties other than the men and their leaders were entirely free of blame; and the employers were not even mentioned. A demagogue was one who appealed to the passions and prejudices of men to obtain power for his own ends, and this demagogue was a bad one, who held the public to ransom to extort something to which he was not entitled. The defendant charged the plaintiff with gulling the drivers to gratify^his own love ef power. This implied moral turpitude of a very, base kind indeed. Mr Johnstone said that the article proceeded to revile the plaintiff in disdainful words of withering scorn. It'said that this man would ordinarily be of no significance in the community. “ One is almost tempted to inquire.” said Mr Johnstone, “what is the significance of the writer to arrogate to himself the right to judge.” All this was clearly defamatory of the plaintiff, counsel said, and calculated to disparage his good name._ This libel was given the greatest possible prominence and circulated to 110,000 subscribers. Counsel said he thought that the jury would have no difficulty in concluding that the words complained of were defamatory and reflected gravely upon the plaintiff. All the writing was clearly defamatory of the plaintiff and disparaging to his good name. Mr Johnston said. The plaintiff’s solicitors had written requesting' an apology and compensation, but had received a reply that the article was fair comment, was in the public interest and was true in substance and fact.

The case was unfinished when the court adjourned.