MOSLEY WINS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20455, 7 November 1934, Page 1

MOSLEY WINS.

Awarded Damages for Libel.

PAPER TO PAY £SOOO. JUDGE SAYS HE AGREES WITH JURY’S VERDICT. United Tress Assn.—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. (Received November 7, 11.30 am.) LONDON. November 6. Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Fascists, has been awarded £3OOO damages with costs against the London “ Star ” for libel, contained in a leading article, which commented on a public debate last year between Sir Oswald and Mr James Maxton. The Chief Justice refused a stay of execution, declaring: “If you want a stay you must go to the Appeal Court. I entirely agree with the jury’s verdict.”

* The action is based on the following section of a leader in the newspaper: “ Sir Oswald Mosley warned Mr Maxton that he and his Fascists would be ready to take over the Government with the aid of machine-guns when the moment arrived. Mr Tom Mann was recently thrown into prison on the mere suspicion that he might say something ten times less provocative than Sir Oswald Mosley’s words.” The defence is that the words are substantially true, and are -fair comment. Sir Patrick Hastings, for Sir Oswald Mosley, pleaded that the words meant that Sir Oswald was prepared to take over the Government by force, and that he had said something worse than what Mann was imprisoned for. Summing up. the Chief Justice said that the defence in effect pleaded liberty of opinion. “ This liberty had become a strange and fanciful thing if it meant that we were only prepared to listen to those agreeing with us. " Toleration of free speech only begins when persons listen decently and fairly to opinions with which they profoundly disagree,” he said. , “ The ' Star ’ writer had not even seen the full report of Sir Oswald Mosley’s words when he wrote his leader. Did not the 4 Star’s ’ words mean that Sir Oswald Mosley had been guilty of a criminal offence?” he asked. Did not the suggestion of Mr Norman Birkett, K.C.. that the case could be met by aii award of a farthing damages mean that Sir Oswald Mosley was a worthless person ? Would not that be adding to injury ? There was still upon record defendant’s plea that the words were true. If it found for plaintiff. the jury was entitled to award him such a sum as would not only compensate for the injury done to him. but 44 mark your sense of that type of journalism.”