LIBEL ACTION

Otago Witness, Issue 3509, 14 June 1921, Page 23

LIBEL ACTION

REV. J. K. ARCHER v. NEW ZEALAND TIMES. £SO DAMAGES AWARDED. M ELLINGTON, June 6. The Supreme Court was occupied all day hearing an action for libel and a claim of £1520 damages brought by the Rev. J. K. Archer, of Christchurch. The libel was allege -d to be contained in an editorial dealing with Archer’s views and comment made by the Chancellor of ihe University of New Zealand (.Sir Robert Stout) on the appointment. The New Zealand Times, in an editorial spoke of Archer as ’’.Marxian m theory. He may probably be termed a revolutionary Communist.” Other statements were made a* to the actions of the Soviet Republic of Russia, which was Marxian. Archer claimed that the article represented him as possessing political economic views identical with those of the Soviet cf Russia; that he was a hypnotical ideologist, that he was represented at the Senate as being like "tlie soft idiots whom the Sov.ets blow to blazes, without trial or hesitation; that he was unworthy of any trial, and should he mercifully put out of existence.” Plaintiff aileged that the article represented him as being a dishonourable man, unworthy of trust. Archer gave evidence at length. He said that as soon as possible after the article appeared he communicated with the Times, but did not receive an apology. Archer said he was a Christian Socialist. He did not hold with the belief known as Marxism, and did not subscribe to rite belief known as Communism or revolutionary Communism, i to v hioh his attitude was unfavourable. Asked to define the ddfeience between Christian ! Socialism and revolutionary Socialism, wit- j ness said that the revolutionary Communist’s position was materialistic, the other j was idealistic. The one appealed to force I and the other appealed to argument, moral j suasion, and constituted fact. Witness admitted that his position in church was the same since tile publication of tlie article, and lie still he’d all his positions. He had contested various-elections at Christchurch and bad been returned. He said he was the Official Labour candidale for the Invercargill seat at last parliamentary election. He denied that he was nominated by ihe party led by Messrs Holland. Semple, and Fraser, lie was selected by the Invercargill people. Mr M. Myers: The Labour Party is led by Holland and Eraser. 'Witness: We don’t have any loader in the Labour Party. It is a democracy. Mr Holland is the leader of the Labour movement iii the House. Mr Fraser was not a revolutionary Communist, neither was the Labour Party platform? A number of witness, including Henry Acid and (chairman Canterbury College Board of Governors), J. B. Condliffe (Professor of Economics at- the Canterbury College) were called, and Mr Myers, for the defence, held that the report of the meeting on what the editorial comment was based was a fair report. Ihe editorial comment was fair. Iho (hanccllor had made certain statements at a meeting of ihe Senate. It was on the basis of what he said, that the Times held it was a subject- for inquiry. June 7. In the libel action brought by the Rev. •J K. Archer against, the New Zealand Tim, -s, in which' plaintiff claimed £ISOO damages, the jury found that the statements in the Times's leading article, that pi.;ini HY -was a revolutionary Communist were c lefama tory, while the balance of the editorial was fair comment on the statements made by the Chancellor of the New Zealand University (Sir Robert Stout). Plaintiff was awarded £SO damages, with costs on the lowest scale.