DAMAGES CLAIM

Southland Times, Issue 22731, 6 November 1935, Page 8

DAMAGES CLAIM

ARTICLE IN JOURNAL ALLEGED DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER COMMENT ON ELECTION (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, November 5. Based upon an article published in “Why,” a journal devoted to the advocacy of the Douglas social credit plan, William McLaren, ex-president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, in the Supreme Court claimed from Albert Edward Robinson, editor of the journel, £5OO, alleging defamation of character. The action came before Mr Justice Callan and a jury. Messrs Haigh and Henry appeared for plaintiff and Messrs Goulding and Sexton for defendant. Mr- Haigh said the action arose out of the publication of an article in the newspaper “Why” in its issue of April 27, 1935. After stressing the importance of the value of a person’s good character and reputation, Mr Haigh said that plaintiff McLaren had brought the action for the purpose of clearing his character from the imputations contained in the article. The article, which extended to two columns, was headed “Who should be Mayor of Auckland?” “Is the Labour Party running a stumer?” Mr Haigh said that at the time the article was published, McLaren was president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union and was naturally prominent in industrial matters in Auckland and in the activities of the Labour Party. In these activities he came into contact on occasions with Mr Ernest Davis. Shortly before July 21 of last year, there was a Free Speech Council in Auckland and a meeting was held in Beresford street. Six men were arrested and the question of having men bailed out arose. McLaren was communicated with and was asked to go to the office of Mr Ernest Davis. McLaren went there shortly after noon and met Davis and two others, Roy Stanley and Fred Loom. Mr Davis mentioned that the question of bail for the six men had been raised and the sum of £3OO was required. He said that Messrs Stanley and Loom were unknown to him, but they had approached him and he (Mr Davis) wanted to know if McLaren would accept the money and arrange bail. McLaren demurred at first and he, Messrs Stanley and Loom adjourned to another room to discuss the matter. Messrs Stanley and Loom impressed upon McLaren the fact that if the money was not accepted, the arrested men would have to remain in gaol over the weekend. The three then returned to Davis and the £306 was produced and handed to McLaren. Ballot For Candidate.

Mr Haigh said the municipal elections were held in April and there were three candidates, Messrs E. Davis, J. Sayegh and A. J. Stallworthy. Several candidates were in the ballot conducted by the Labour Party and they included Mr H. G. R. Mason and Mr Sayegh. Mr Sayegh was successful at the ballot. Following the announcement that Mr Sayegh had been selected as the Labour candidate for the Mayoralty, the article which formed the basis of the present action was published. It was not denied that defendant Mr Robinson, editor- of “Why,” had written the article. The article was brought under the notice of McLaren just after publication. McLaren went to see Mr Robinson and told him the article accused him (McLaren) of bribery and corruption and was injuring his reputation. Mr Robinson asked what portion and McLaren said, “the whole of it.” McLaren asked for a public apology and Robinson replied, “That is nothing to what I’ve got on you,” said Mr Haigh. Robinson refused to give an apology. On June 18, Mr Haigh said, he was instructed by McLaren to write to Robinson requesting an apology, but it was not forthcoming and later the present proceedings were instituted. Mr Haigh said that the word “stumer” meant something containing dishonesty, and he quoted from ablate dictionary which defined “stumer” as a slang word of unknown origin, meaning a sham, such as a forged cheque. His Honour: A stumer I take it is a sham, a pretence.

Mr Haigh: That is so. His Honour: Supposing the meaning of this article is that the whole Labour Party organized a scheme in putting up a candidate who they did .not expect to win because they considered Mr Davis would be friendly to them in putting up a candidate they did not expect to win. Would not that be a political sham? Mr Haigh: According to this article .there was a sham as far as the leaders of the Labour Party were concerned. The article implies that there was no intention to put Mr Sayegh in as Mayor, but so far as the rank and file of Labour were concerned, the whole thing was bona fide. Therefore, the leaders were misleading the rank and file. , Counsel said that McLaren had taken the money, but found that two of the arrested men had been bailed out on the Monday morning. The £lOO not required was returned by McLaren to Mr Davis. Subsequently, when the men had been dealt with by the Court, McLaren returned the balance of £2OO to Mr Davis. There was no question at any time of McLaren retaining any of the money. The article suggested that the Labour Party had put up Mr Sayegh as their candidate, knowing that he had no chance of being elected and to ensure the election of Mr Davis who would be friendly to the party. Bail Arrangements. McLaren gave evidence of making bail arrangements for the men concerned in the Free Speech Council meeting and said the money was returned to Mr Davis who said he had been approached regarding the matter after the article appeared. It was necessary to call a special meeting of the Waterside Workers’- Union for witness to explain his position. The union then stood by his actions, but he felt that the contents of the article affected his status when he was defeated in July as president of the organization. Cross-examined, plaintiff denied he had been principally concerned with the statement attributed to him about “Communists.” This was untrue, as was also the statement attributed to Mr Davis about not caring whether the money were lost. Robinson claimed he had no intention of injuring witness. McLaren added he did not have a vote in the Labour ballot. The selection was in the hands of delegates to the Labour Representation Committee. He said there had been a “hue and cry” when it was known that Mr Sayegh topped the selection ballot, and there were inquiries from headquarters in Wellington. His Honour: They came up to say: “What have you been doing to Mr Mason?” Mr Goulding: Had there been a Mayoral contest between Messrs Mason and Sayegh alone, what would your view of the result be? Witness: It would all depend who had the official backing of the Labour Party machine. Witness was aware that “Why” was published in the interests of the Douglas credit movement, but he was not far advanced in the opinions of the movement. His Honour: If we could get an expert in the stand to explain the system I would listen to him. I Witness agreed that the purpose of

the paper was to attack those persons commanding money. “Considerable Comment.”

Evidence was given by two waterside workers that the article caused considerable comment about plaintiff and one thought he had been “somewhat under a cloud” on the waterfront. Mr Goulding moved for a non-suit on the grounds that the words in the ordinary sense were not defamatory of plaintiff personally, and that the innuendoes alleged were not natural, reasonable or necessary inferences to be drawn.

His Honour said that any suggestion of inference that plaintiff received bribes could not be supported, and Mr Haigh agreed to withdraw this allegation.

Prefacing the evidence for the defence, Mr Goulding said it had to be shown for the claim that the article actually pointed toward McLaren in the way suggested. There was also the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest. Defendant, Albert Edward Robinson, secretary to the Auckland Provincial Branch of the New Zealand Fanners’ Union, said that McLaren first approached him as a fellow unionist and claimed that the article would put an end to his industrial career. Witness then said he had kept from the article material which might have been injurious to plaintiff and he contended that the complaints were not about the truth of the article. No apology was demanded although witness offered to give what satisfaction he could. Cross-examined, Robinson said he considered there was corruption in politics in New Zealand and he h(id written articles to that effect. Asked what his “fierce suspicions” were, he said they were that the Labour Party was “running a stumer” in connection with the election, but should the party have tried to get Mr Davis in as Mayor, that would be its own business. His meaning was that some of the Labour people wanted Mr Mason out of the way. His suspicions were not convictions, but one suspicion was that the majority of the party preferred Mr Davis to Mr Sayegh as Mayor. He thought the Trades Hall ran the Labour Party, meaning the leaders. The rank and file might not know Mr Sayegh was not wanted as Mayor. The case was adjourned.