ALLEGED LIBEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3774, 13 July 1926, Page 55

ALLEGED LIBEL.

ELECTION AFTERMATH. AUCKLAND, July 7. Mr Justice Stringer and a special jury are occupied in the Supreme Court in hearing, an action involving a claim of £SOOO for damages by Alfred Hall-Skelton, barrister and solicitor, against Henry Hastings Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, a printer, for alleged libel in printed matter printed during the 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 Seabrook as 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 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.—“lt 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 nurderers, 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 oontended that the circular, in fact, meant that he 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 disloyal; that he was the representative of and identified with and in sympathy with persons who held murder a sacred duty, and who were engaged in treasonable practices. On the first claim plaintiff asked for £2OOO damages, and on the second £3OOO as damages. The defence was 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 the words, taken in their natural meaning, so far as they stated facts, wer6 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. 81r John Findlay, In opening for plaintiff, said he did not think the case would give the Jury much difficulty. Mr HallSkelton had practised as a barrister and solicitor in Auckland for many years, and the defendants were In bdflness 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 that a certain element of sectarianism grossly disfigured the action. The defendant Seabrook was president of the Roskill group of the P.P.A. During his campaign Mr Skelton studiously avoided any reference to the P.r.A. or Sea-

brook, 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 breach of the Electoral Act. Not content with this violent and bitter attempt, when the plaintiff liad 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 showed 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 he displayed in this matter was almost umazing, 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 were published were true and fair and honest criticism and comment, and were published without malice. The defence really meant that it was hopeless for Seabrook to rely on it. Among the witnesses to-day was the 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 Allen begging him to carry on with his work. Explaining the effect of the alleged libel, he said that up to 19<H 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 sit with him in his lodge, and when he tried, to join different associations he found various matters were brought up and that he was avoided. “I believe,” he said, “that Collins did more by his death for the Free State than even his life. It did much to lessen the evil influence of De Valera. He was a student,” said the witness, 1 and he knew 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 in 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 plaintiff: How much money did you get out 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 mee,tings? Plaintiff replied he did not know. He 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 nis 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.