LIBEL ALLEGED

Southland Times, Issue 21772, 29 July 1932, Page 6

LIBEL ALLEGED

TWO MEN CHARGED SEQUEL TO UNEMPLOYED DEMONSTRATION JURY DISAGREES (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, July 28. As a sequel to an unemployed demonstration' in the grounds of Parliament House on September 16, George Budd and Ernest Frederick Thompson were tried at the Supreme Court today on a charge of publishing a defamatory lib '1 of Police Inspector Lander. The alleged libel was contained in a pamphlet entitled “War,” which was distributed at a meeting held in Auckland in October, and it referred to Lander as a liar and a perjurer when he said he was not armed while on duty during the disturbance. After detectives had given evidence counsel produced a photograph taken during the disturbance. Both detectives said they considered Inspector Lander, who could be seen in the photograph, was not the armed man indicated by counsel, and that it was not Inspector Lander. Counsel then said it was clear a mistake had been made by the accused. They had seen the photograph and had belie zed the man caf tying the baton was Inspector Lander. After further evidence had been heard counsel for the accused said the astonishing thing was that the Magistrate had ever permitted a prosecution for criminal libel. Inspector Lander had his remedy through civil action for libel. The Crown Prosecutor said the law of criminal libel had been brought in only in 1901, because it had been found necessary to restrain irresponsible and dangerous persons from libelling men in public positions. His Honour described the case as a comparatively simple one. Statements against Inspector Lander were that he was a liar, that he perjured himself and that he attacked defenceless men and women. It was open to the defence to seek to prove that the statements were true, but they had not done so. If these words had been published it would be absurd, and it was possible to suggest that they were not defamatory. The main defence was that these two men were not responsible for the publication and distribution of the paper, but there was the direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thompson and the name of Budd was at the bottom of the paper. The real question was this defamatory libel referring to Inspector Lander.

After a retirement lasting three and a half hours the jury returned to ask that if a verdict of publishing was found against Budd and of distributing against Thompson, would both be equally guiltv. His Honour replied that if Budd published the libel he was guilty, and if Thompson distributed a libellous document he also was guilty.

The impossibility of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman after a retirement of four and a half hours.

His Honour discharged the jury and said the accused would be retried on Monday.

“No. I won’t allow them bail,” he told counsel. “They can stay where they are.”