THE SUN Libel Action

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 86, 2 July 1927, Page 9

THE SUN Libel Action

Mr. Morton Aldis

Claim By

The Right of Reply to Abuse IF a person, rightly or wrongly, starts abusing people he must not be too thin-skinned about getting it back,” said His Honour, Mr. Justice Reed, during the hearing of a libel action against THE SUN Newspapers Ltd., at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon.

TN the present case,” added his Honour, “plaintiff made an attack upon the trustees and the paper gave them the right of reply. It seems hard to attack the paper on account of that.”

The action was one in which Mr. Morton Aldis, solicitor and secretary, of Devonport (Mr. Hogben), proceeded against THE SUN Newspapers, Ltd., (Mr. Northcroft), for libel, claiming that as a result of a statement which the defendant company falsely and maliciously published, the plaintiff had been greatly injured and prejudiced in credit and reputation as a secretary, and also, that he had been brought into public scandal, hatred and contempt. The claim was for £3OO damages and costs. In the statement of claim the following paragraph was set out as a basis of the action: “An ex-secretary of the Jubilee Institute of the Blind, Mr. Morton Aldis, attacked the methods of Mr. C. Mackenzie, the present director, at a meeting in the Newmarket Town Hall last evening. He also made an allegation of faulty administration. Replying to these allegations the trustees say the resignation of Mr. Aldis was accepted with relief, and that, they regard his allegations as the undignified talk of a man who has failed in his position.” PUBLICATION ADMITTED For the defendant company, Mr. Northcroft admitted that plaintiff was the person referred to, and that THE SUN Newspapers, Ltd., had published the articles complained of. The article, said counsel, was a reply to an attack by plaintiff upon the trustees of the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, in connection with the appointment of Mr. Clutha Mackenzie, the principal of the institute. The document was written by the trustees, who sought out the newspapers in Auckland, and asked for it to be published. Briefly reviewing the history of the institute, Mr. Northcroft -said that plaintiff had greatly objected to the appointment of Mr. Clutha Mackenzie as director, and had placed every obstacle in the way of harmonious working between director and secretary. As a result of an astonishing document of six typewritten pages containing an attack upon the director, and which he forwarded to the trustees, he was severely reprimanded in a letter signed by all the trustees. In May, 1926, Mr. Aldis resigned his position, continued counsel, and he then called a public meeting at Newmarket at which he made an attack upon the trustees. The reply of the trustees, which was published along with the report of the meeting, was the subject of the action. “TRUSTEES IN HIS POCKET” For the plaintiff Mr. Hogben contended that the libel was contained in the use of the words “Failed in his position,” which were taken out of the context and used as a heading. Comment, he considered, was tl judgment of the writer. To put the.-'. words jn the heading, was in his opinion, to remove them from the sphere of comment. The words merely qualified the statement in the trustee’s reply, “the undignified talk of a man who had failed in his position.” Giving corroborative evidence, the Hon. George Fowlds, a trustee of the institute, said that after plaintiff’s extraordinary letter of protest to the trustees, they were pleased to accept his resignation. In the witness-box plaintiff said that at no time did he allow his difference

of opinion to interfere with the work of the institute. There was no personal disagreement, said witness. Mr. Mackenzie had so got the trustees in his pocket it was useless for witness to try and do anything. To Mr. Northcroft: He knew the trustees who were the authors of the trustees’ reply. Mr. Northcroft: Well,' why didn't you proceed against them? Witness said he had several reasons. In the first place, just before THE SUN started to publish, the editor had refused to publish a letter he had written regarding the institute. The editor said he considered Mr. Mackenzie was a suitable man for the position, and he would not attack him. Mr. Northcroft: Being a solicitor you must know that that letter would have been a dangerous one for the paper to have published. Witness: It might have been. Witness said THE SUN had also refused to publish his letter in regard to the trustees’ reply. Mr. Northcroft: You must be quite aware of the fact that when letters have been previously published in other papers, it is the custom of papers not to publish such letters. Witness stated that the third reason was that THE SUN was the only paper which had published the paragraph at the end of the trustees’ reply, “that it was the undignified talk of a man who had failed in his position.” They also published it in a more offensive manner. Mr. Northcroft: You have had the benefit of wide publicity in the matter. What have you come to £he court for—vindication or money? Witness: Vindication. Mr. Northcroft: Well, have you not had it. The other papers published your letter. Witness: Yes, but there may be people who read THE SUN who do not read the other papers. A TIRADE OF ABUSE Mr. Hogben said that the general question was whether the published statements were defamatory. His Honour: Can you justify that letter written by plaintiff to the trustees? I don’t think it is a letter that could be defended. It was a most improper letter from a person in his position. Can you say that a man who wrote a letter like that has not failed in his position? Mr. Hogben contended that even where the words complained of appeared in the context, it did not justify them, set out as they were. In writing to the trustees plaintiff must have been honest in the purpose be intended. His Honour: If the report had been couched in temperate language the matter would have been different. As it stands it is simply a tirade of abuse. “In places it is also very trivial. In one place he complains of Mr Mackenzie coming in late to meals.” Addressing his Honour, Mr. Northcroft said that the controversy hack been created by plaintiff and if ever there was an occasion on which fair comment was called for, that was one. Te did not think that it could be said Tat the comment was not fair. “Fortunately, conclude'd counsel, “the press in this country has always shown great courage in facing its duty when called upon to do so in such cases. The trustees were all highly respectable members of the community, and it would by no means have been fair if the press had refused them the right of reply.”

His Honour intimated that he would give his decision in writing.