LIBEL ACTION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20259, 7 November 1935, Page 5

LIBEL ACTION

SEQUEL TO MAYORAL ELECTION

JURY FINDS FOR THE DEFENDANTS By Telegraph—Press Association AUCKLAND. November 6. The action in which William McLaren, a former president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, claimed £SOO for alleged libel in the publication “Why?” arising out of the Auckland Mayoral election in May, was concluded hefore Mr Justice Callan and a jury in the Supreme Court. The defendants, for whom judgment was given, were A. E. Robinson, as editor of the publication, Farming First Ltd., proprietors, and the Queen City Press, printers. Mr Halgh and Mr Henry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Goulding and Mr Sexton for the defence. Addressing the jury for the defence, Mr Goulding said the jury must be satisfied that the statements complained of referred to the 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 a defence of justification that the statements were true, and a further defence of fair comment could be found. Newspapers were entitled to criticise men in public office. While the comment might be derogatory, it did not follow that It might not be fair. . Mr Haigh said that no writer could escape 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 opponent. Mr Haigh asked whether the article conveyed to reasonable people the impression that the Labour people were putting forward Mr Sayegh as candidate for Mayor instead of Mr H. G. R. Mason 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 Impression 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 Beresford Street, Newton, was Introduced. Judge’s Address His Honour said the case was of considerable importance to those concerned. According to authorities a statement was none the less defamatory because it was not intended to be so. It would be only a careless, perverse or uncharitable reading of the article which could cause any suggestion of bribery of McLaren to be interpreted, and even libellers were not responsible for a perverse misconstruction of what they had written. A further submission for the plaintiff was that the article contained an accusation of treachery on the part of McLaren toward his own people, the watersiders, and the rank and file of the Labour Party. Whether such a 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 that injury had been caused by a particluar 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, but - with whether he hit McLaren. If in the course of trying to discredit Mr Davis Robinson had done harm to McLaren, It did not matter in 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 critic was not allowed even with a public man to be wrong in his facts. After a long retirement, the Jury returned a decision in favour of the defendants by 10 to two. Judgment was granted the defendants, with costs according to scale, and other costs as requested.