DEFAMATION ALLEGED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19642, 9 November 1933, Page 5

DEFAMATION ALLEGED

£IOOO CLAIMED FROM CROWN RADIO OPERATOR’S CASE FAILS By Telegraph—Press Association AUCKLAND, November 8. A claim for £IOOO damages against the Postmaster-General, on the ground of alleged defamation, was made In the Supreme Court to-day by Roy Keith, radio operator, of Auckland. Counsel said that plaintiff used to be on the air as operator of Station IZQ, and had been in the radio business for II years. On May 3 he received a letter for which the Minister accepted responsibility, stating that on the ground that he was deemed to be an unsuitable person to be entrusted with the operation of a broadcasting station, the Minister had directed that no further broadcasting license be issued to him. “We claim this man has been victimised,” said counsel. “There may be a question of privilege entering into the letter, but we claim we will be able to prove malice.” Mr Justice Herdman: You admit qualified privilege; that puts on your shoulders the responsibility to prove malice or motive. Counsel: If there has been a policy on the part of departmental officers to take such action as would put B stations out of existence, I will prove ill-will. Plaintiff, as one of the members, comes within the ill-will. His Honour: This is purely a personal action? Counsel: Against the Minister or his agent. If officers of the department, actuated by ill-will, spite or any motive, are determined to put B stations off the air, I submit that would show malice on the part of the Minister or his officers. Counsel said that the letter had a sinister suggestion, and was a slur on plaintiff’s character. His means of livelihood had been takert away. Plaintiff had been pestered by the department since he began operating, and his correspondence had been interfered with. Restrictions had been placed on him, but not on other operators. His Honour: There may have been some special reason for it. Counsel for the Crown objected to an attempt to discuss the conduct of other stations, and the Judge said that letters which had passed between Keith and the Department could be read if they showed spite or malice. He asked what letters indicated malice? Plaintiff’s counsel replied: “Those saying that this man could not do certain things while other stations were doing them.” Plaintiff’s Evidence. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that since he commenced broadcasting in Auckland in 1915 his station had been known as "Keith’s radio shack.” In 1931 he shifted from Karangahape Road to the premises of the Atwater Piano Co. Mr Dickson: I think you were suspended in 1932?—Yes, for 16 days, allegedly for announcing that records were supplied to me by a gramophone concern and mentioning my trade name “Keith’s Radio Shack.” In connection with your trade name, had other stations been mentioning it?—Yes. Before his suspension, witness added, he had a conversation with Mr Robins, the radio inspector, who said he would have him put off the air. About that time, December, 1930, he wrote to Wellington complaining of pinpricking. In March, 1932, he entered into an arrangement with the Atwater Piano Co., from whose premises he broadcasted. This arrangement was later discontinued.

Mr Dickson: Then you carried on with a number of difficulties and trials until you were suspended in May 1933?—Yes, at the Selwyn Business and Technical College, Civic Square.

Witness continued that after he had been there two months he received a complaint that he had been broadcasting under this name, whereas the Department said he should have done so as Civic House, Civic Square. He contended that the regulations entitled him to give his full name and address. Regarding the second complaint, witness said it related to the broadcasting of records relating to a film sponsored by a theatre. At the same time Station IZR had a land line laid to two theatres and was broadcasting parts of the film. On March 29 he wrote stating that he would relay if the Department preferred it.

Mr Dickson: And what was the reply?—They did not reply to the suggestion in connection with a land line; they only said some people were allowed to do things which others were not.

Mr Dickson: Have you had advertising withdrawn from your station?— Yes, because I could not advertise in the same way as other stations were doing. His Honour held that there was no case to go to the jury, and gave judgment for the defendant.