CLAIM FAILS

Southland Times, Issue 22732, 7 November 1935, Page 4

CLAIM FAILS

ALLEGED LIBEL ARTICLE IN WHY COMMENT ON ELECTION (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, November 6. The action in which William McLaren, former president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, claimed £5OO for alleged libel in the publication Why? arising out of the Auckland Mayoral election in May, was concluded before Mr Justice Callan and jury in the Supreme Court. Defendants, for whom judgment was given, were Mr A. E. Robinson, as editor of the publication Farming First Limited, proprietors, and Queen City Dress Printers. Messrs Haigh and Henry appeared for plaintiff, Messrs Goulding and Sexton conducting the defence.

Addressing the jury for the defence, Mr Goulding said the jury must be satisfied that the statements complained of referred to plaintiff. The defence was that the article was not defamatory in any part and was not written concerning McLaren. If the jury believed the statements applied to McLaren, there was the defence of justification, in that the statements were true and further, the defence of fair comment could be found. Newspapers were entitled to criticize men in public office and while the comment might be derogatory, it did not follow that it might not be fair. Mr Haigh said that no writer could escape a judgment for libel, because the offence cannot be pinned down to particular words or sentences. He suggested that Why? contained a gross libel against Mr Davis and the article showed the type of man Robinson was in trying to besmirch his opponents, in this case Mr Davis, a man with money. Mr Haigh asked whether the article conveyed to reasonable people the impression that the Labour people were putting forward Mr Sayegh as a candidate for Mayor instead of Mr H. G. R. Mason, M.P., so that Mr Davis could win. That would be deceiving the rank and file of the party and would mean disloyalty and secret treachery on the part of the leaders, among whom it was contended McLaren could be placed. Mr Haigh said he thought the impresson of the article was that of a sinister conspiracy between Mr Davis and the Labour leaders,” and to support the suggestion that McLaren was hand in glove with Mr Davis. The incident regarding the bailing of the men arrested in connection with the Free Speech Council meeting in Belsford street, Newton, was introduced. , His Honour said the case was ot considerable importance to those concerned. According to authorities the statement was none the less defamatory because it was not intended to be so. It would be only careless, perverse or uncharitable reading of the article which could place any suggestion of bribery on McLaren to be interpreted, and even libellers were not responsible for perverse misconstruction of what they had written. Continuing, his Honour said a further submission for plaintiff was that the article contained an accusation ot treachery on the part of McLaren toward his own people, the watersiders and rank and file of the Labour Party. Whether such meaning could be extracted from the article was a matter for the jury. ... . His Honour commented that libel cases had a curious resemblance. The first thing Robinson did was to asK McLaren to show what was wrong, and Mr Goulding had done similarly when McLaren was in the witness box. It was possible to feel instinctively injury had been caused by particular writing and yet it might be extremely difficult to explain precisely why it was felt there was an injury. . , The purpose of the article seemed to have been to do harm to the candidature of Mr Davis, said his Honour. The Court was not concerned with whom Robinson was aiming at > with whether he hit McLaren.. If Jn the course of trying to discredit Davis, Robinson had done harm to McLaren, it did not matter m the least that the object of the .article was quite different. Justification was a defence if the facts were true. There were also limits to fair comment A Sc was not allowed even with a nublic man, to be wrong in his tacts. After a long retirement, the jury returned a decision in favour of defend“jUdgment granted dof S nd^' t f with costs according to scale and other costs requested.