ELECTION AFTERMATH

Otago Witness, Issue 3594, 30 January 1923, Page 30

ELECTION AFTERMATH

ALLEGED DEFAMATORY STATEMENT. J olin George Moody, publisher of the Dunedin Evening Star, was charged at the City Police Court on Friday morning with having published between the issue of the writs under “The Legislature Act, 1S08,” and the close of the poll, printed matter containing an untrue statement defamatory of Joseph Stephens, the Labour candidate for the Chalmers electorate, and one calculated to influence the will of an elector, the matter being contained in the words “Mr Dickson, at Port Chalmers last night, called him a Revolutionary Socialist.” Mr J. C. Stephens, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Counsel said that he had proposed to have the case adjourned till February 9 so that the evidence of one of the witnesses could be taken, but he had since found that another of his witnesses would be out of town at that date. He therefore suggested that the evidence of that witness should be taken, and that the case should then be adjourned. lan Gray Maclnnes, a reporter employed by the Otago Daily Times, said that ‘he and another Daily Times reporter had attended Mr Dickson’s meeting an November 28. Witness had reported the first portion of the speech. The report contained the words: “He was now being opposed by a representative of the extreme Labour Party, or os they chose to call themselves, the Revolutionary Socialists.” Witness said that this was a verbatim report of what Mr Dickson had said. He had no doubt whatever about its accuracy. Cross-examined by Mr A. G. Neill, who appeared for the prosecution, witness said that the report in the Evening Star (which Mr Neill said had contained .the words “he was being opposed by Mr Stephens, an extreme Socialist) had probably been very much condensed, and the reporter had evidently attempted to give the meaning of the speaker as shortly as possible. Mr Dickson had not actually called Mr Stephens a revolutionary Socialist. Mr Neill: Then the Star, in its leading article, is incorrect in saying that Mr Dickson called Mr Stephens “a revolutionary Socialist”? Mr Stephens objected to the question. He said that it was one of the questions which the magistrate would have to deride. The question was allowed, and witness replied that those actual words were not used. The words used dealt with the party, not the candidate. Mr Stephens: Could there be any doubt that Mr Dickson was labelling Mr Stephens as a Revolutionary Socialist? Mr Neill objected to the question The Magistrate: All the court wants to get from the witness is what was actually said. However, the question is permissible. Witness, on the question being repeated, said that that was the meaning he took out of it. The case was then adjourned tilt February 9.