CLAIM FOR £5000.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17080, 8 July 1926, Page 8

CLAIM FOR £SOOO.

ALLEGED ELECTION CTREE. PLAINTIFF'S CASE OPENED. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, lasi night. The hearing of the claim for £SOOO damages by Alfred Ilall Skelton, barrister and solicitor, against Henry Hastings Son brook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for an alleged libel in printing mutter during the election campaign of 1925, was commenced today before Hi,s Honor Air. .Justice Stringer and a special jury. Sir .John Findlay anil Messrs. Jmler and Connell appear for the plaintiff and Messrs 0. VV. Finlay and Rogerson for tlu' defendants. Sir John Findlay opened’ for plaintiff. He said he did not think the ease would give the jury much ditlictilty. Mr. Hall Skelton had practised as ;i barrister and solicitor in Auckland for many years, and defendants were in business 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. ft was unfortunate that a certain (dement of sectarianism grossly disfigured the action. To-day the defendant Soabvook was president of the Roskill group of the F.P.A. During his campaign, Air. Skelton studiously avoided any reference to the P.P.A. or Seabrook, hut on the other hand Seabrook two or three days before the election tired a foul shot that was malignant in its entirety. It was the circular mentioned above, which contained wild and bitter words. Shortly after the election Seabrook was convicted for it bread) of the Electoral Act. A SCATHING INDICTMENT. Not content with this violent and bitter attempt, when plaintiff had no chance or legal rights of reply, Seabrook printed and published on the same day an extract from the “N.Z. Sentinel.” The jury was not dealing with an irresponsible man. He was a man who dipped his hand in fhe most •Vitriolic stuff he could and displayed energy in distributing his efforts among people. It was important to note that when malice amounts to almost a crime the jury should find heavy damages. Here there was a long and cool deliberation that leaves Seabrook no, escape- He showed great intevesl in a house to house canvass of the 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 amazing,” said Sir John.

Dealing with the defence, counsel said that after denying that the words were published, the opposing counsel went on to say that the words that wero 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.

THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. Among the witnesses to-day was the plaintiff, A. Hall Skelton, who detailed his activities during the war in recruiting work in the National Reserve. When he was about to enlist ho received a telegram from Sir James Allen bogging him to carry on with his work. Kxphtiping the effect of the alleged libel, lie said that up to .1921 his business hud been successful and that his gross .takings that year/ were over £4000; after tliat they dwindled. He had been boycotted. People would not sit with him in a lodge, and when he tried to join different associations he found various matters were brought up, and that lie was avoided. “I believe,” he said, “(hat Collins did more by his death for the Free Stale than even in his life. It had done much to influence Do Valera. He was a student,” said witness, “and lie knew that a separated Ireland would bo bankrupt in three months.” Shown different documents claiming to have been published by the SolfDetprniination for Ireland League, witness replied that he, did not believe them to be official documents of the League. There were several different sections. He. did not know much about that part of iho organisation. MOVE FOR RECONCILIATION.

His Honor: But you went away to represent them. Witness: 1 went to take part in the move for reconciliation. His Honor: Then you must have known something about the organisation? —I did not know much about it. Sir J. Findlay to plaintiff: How much money Rid you got out of this clmutit: organisation (meaning the HelfDotermination for Ireland Longue)?Oh,T think it came to about £IOOO. Bit- J. Findlay: For \yhat form of Government bad the people pi Ireland voted when you wero addressing meetings?—Plaintiff replied that he did not know. He had not taken a great, ileal of interest in the history of Ireland subsequent to the war. He could not say ho had read all the cables. ]n reply to Ihe Judge, plaintiff said a man like Michael Collins had to placate the strong sections of Republicans opposed to his views. Collins told him that that .was the attitude he adopted. His,Honor: What was the definition of “self-determination”? —It was to support the choice of a government on the lines of Australia and New Zealand. ‘ 'lhe Court adjourned until to-mor-row.