CARPENTERS AT LAW.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 12 October 1926, Page 6

CARPENTERS AT LAW.

CANTED B URY UN 10 N AWARDED £IOO FOR LIBEL.

The hearing of. a libel action by the Canterbury Carpenters’ and Joiners' Union against tno New Zealand Amalgamated Society of Carpenters’ and o omers’, Association was bear'd- in Christchurch before Mr Justice Adams. The Canterbury Union.and its officeel's jointly claimed £250 against the amalgamated association on account of an article by E. C. .Sutcliffe -in the “New Zealand Carpenter and Joiner,” published by the amalgamated .association, on October 15, 1925, accusing the Canterbury Union of having betrayed fellow-workers to tho builders. Tho president'and secretary of the amalgamated association, the editor of the Journal, and Sutcliffe were joined as defendants.

Mr O’Regan (Wellington), with him Mr M’Cartny, appeared for the Canterbury Union, ami Mr Hunter'-for the Amalgamated Society. Mr O’Regan moved for judgment.. He said that the claim for damages was a modest one. Hie article obviously was libellous, and the defendants, having pleaded justification, should have proved it, otherwise plains tiffs were entitled ;to ... exemplary damages. Carpenters and joiners were a very respectable body ,of men, and members of the Canterbury Union were worthy representatives of them.'in New Zealand.

Mr Hunter said that Mr Sutcliffe’s reference in the article to’thirty pieces of silver did not show malice. He could not deny that the language was strong. Mr Sutcliffe meant mei'ely that the Canterbury Union had bartered certain rights in order to get preference. His Honour said that the evidence had satisfied him that there was no* truth in the main statements in the article. Hie first heading was “Christchurch Conciliation Conspiracy.” The, second heading was “Builders’ Association and Union Fraternise as Brothel'S,” and the third 'heading-was “Attempt to Betray Fellow Workers/' The second heading taken with the first and third, indicated that tho writer meant it to have a sinister meaning. It could be roadily understood that it very well would convey a seriously defamatory meaning to those for whoso, reading it was intended 1 . Tho' third heading indicated a charge that there was an intention on the part of the Canterbury Union and of its officers, to betray their fellow-workers in New Zealand, numbering some 8000 or 900. There was no ovidenee of any such" attenlpt. Tho articlo and the headings appeared to his Honour to breathe malice. The culmination was to bo' found in tho shocking comparison that tho writer did not hesitate to suggest between the plaintiffs and Judas Iscariot. No words could excuse a reference: of that character unless it was shown that it was absolutely .called for. There was no evidence of the truth of any of the headings. The writer of tho article, and those responsible for its publication, ~ had published a garbled and incorrect statement of tlio facts. A report was available of what really took place, but defendants did not publish it, or a copy of the award, or any of tho documents, which, if published side by .side with tho article, would have helped readers of the journal to estimate the value of the story,, and his Honour thought, improper language used. A large body of workers had been invited by the article to form opinions of’their brethren in tho Canterbury Union. Those opinions wore to be formed on that one-sided, stronglybiased and incorrect statement. When a person sought, to advance truth, ho should remember that the just tiling should ho done in a just way, and that the truth was best advanced by moderate language and truthful statements. Defendants not only published tho statements but. did nothing to modify them, and pleaded that everything Was true. With tho exception of certain reluctant admissions in tho wit-ness-box, defendants had persisted in statements which, under cross-examin-ation. were shown to lie, incorrect.

Judgment wou'd lie given for plaintiffs for £IOO, with costs, according to scale, against al defendants except J. Moulton, president of tho Amalgamated Association. His Honour upheld a nonsuit point by Mr Hunter that Moulton had nothing to do with the libel. Costs were allowed to Moulton. His Honour said that it was not necessary to issue an injunction restraining defendants from further publication of the defamatory words.