CLAIM FOR £5000.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17079, 7 July 1926, Page 12

CLAIM FOR £SOOO.

AIXKill'll) LIBELLOUS DOCUMENTS ELECTION CAM PA lON SEQUEL. (Per Press Association.) Al l ELAM), this day. His Honor, Mr. .Justice Stringer, and a special jury, is occupied at the Supreme (Joint, in lien ring an action involving a claim tor £6OOO damages by Alfred llall Skelton, barrister and .solicitor, against, Henry Hastings Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for an alleged libel in printing matter during the election campaign of 1925. Sir John Findlay and Messrs. Jmler and Connell appear for the plaintiff, and Messrs. (I. \Y. Finlay and Itogerson for the defendants. The alleged lihol was contained in a circular of the Protestant Political Association, signed by Seabrook, as president of tlm Hoskill group, in which the Parliamentary candidates were Mr. V. H. Potter and Mr. Hall Skelton. It was stated in the circular that Hall Skelton's’ declared ambition was to smash Hie P.P.A., and this declaration would, no doii 1 it, secure Idle Human Catholic vo! i . The following is quoted from tile circular: ‘lt cannot lie forgotten that Hall Skelton acted as a representative of the, party seeking to disintegrate tno British Empire, and lie has publiclyeulogised Michael Collins, who was the leader of a gang of atrocious murderers, and who was condemned to be hanged lm crimes against the Empire. 'Thoughtful men and women who recall .stn’h things cannot surely choose as their representative a man who has manifested sympathy with those who, when Hie Empire Mas in the throes of a struggle for life, were engaged within it in a. policy ot murder to hinder the prosecution o ft lie great war, and to .secure its overthrow.” The plaintiff contended that the circular, in fact, meant that- lie was disloyal. and in sympathy with murderers. A second cause of action concerned alleged matter in the New Zealand ;Sentinel, which the plaintiif claimed set him out as home- disloyal, in that lie was a. representative of, identified with, and in sympathy with persons who held murder a snored duly, and who were engaged in treasonable praetiei-s. (hi the. first- claim plaintiif asked for £2OOO, and on the second, UoCXK) damages. The defence will he a denial of pubin alum: that the words complained of were, nof intended to mean what was alleged, nor did they hear any defamatory meaning; that the words complained of were not libel : that the words, taken in a natural meaning in so far as they state facts, were true in substance and fact: that the opinions, or comment, were fair and lmnofct criticism in the public, interest, and without malice; and, further.’that the publication was privileged, and that Hie. defendant sustained no damage.