'STOM IN A TEACUP"

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 69, Issue 7, 2 May 1944, Page 5

'STOM IN A TEACUP"

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF

A case which has caused widespread public interest came before Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., at the. Opotiki Courthouse on Friday, when Mr W. Sullivan Member of Parliament for the Bay of Plenty, proceeded against Mr W. W. Jonasen, who contested the seat at the last general election in the interests of the. Labour Party. The alleged defamation of character, and a claim for £300 damages, Avas based on. a statement claimed by plaintiff to have been made by defendant on the of the general election, during an address in the Regent Theatre, Opotiki. After a lengthy hearing, judgment was given for plaintiff for £10 and costs amounting to £3 16s. Mr G. Otley, of Whakatane, appeared on behalf, of plaintiff, while Mr E. G. East, of Opotiki, acted in conjunction with him. Mr D. W. lies, of Gisborne, appeared on behalf of defendant. A Pernicious Statement Mr Otley, in outlining the circumstances of the claim, said that in the course of. his final election address in Opotiki, it was alleged that defendant had said, "Big Bill Sullivan has obtained £10,000 illegitimately." Plaintiff was the director of a big building company at. Whakatane. The statement was alleged to be. false and malicious, continued Mr Otley, and could have had a very damaging effect on the business and character of plaintiff. an attack at. a public meeting could have a very far reaching effect which it was not possible to estimate. A report was published in The Opotiki News of sth October, and that was: the natural consequence of. such a statement. It would be difficult to imagine a more damaging and pernicious statement.

Entitled 1 to Protection

Plaintiff was entitled to have his name protected, contended Mr Otley, and to come to the court to seek that protection if not obtainable by other means. Plaintiff was in political life and was Member of Parliament for the. district. People in public life must be prepared to receive knocks, but this statement was a hit below the belt. When plaintiff heard of. this statement he took steps to try to obtain a retraction of it. He did not wish to seek the aid of the. court., and all he wanted was a retraction. Every consideration had been shown defendant to enable the statement .to be withdrawn, but within the last 48 hours a letter came from the solicitor for defendant offering some form of regret, but it was very late and in a form not acceptable to plaintiff. Journalist's Evidence The first witness for plaintiff was Francis Herbert Roe, editor of The Opotiki News, who said that at the meeting in question, defendant made reference to Mr Sullivan, and said that, statements made by -the latter were "all lies and hooey." It was rather a wild type of address. In one statement defendant said that Big Bill Sullivan had made £10,000 j%ltegitimate]<y from building State houses, with which he had bought a £10,000 farm; and shortly after defendant more or less repeated the statement by saying that plaintiff had made £100 illegitimately from each State house that he had built. As a hearer, witness said that he took it that plaintiff had unlawfully made the money. Indtependant Witnesses Mr W. Reg. E. Walker, a farmer, said in evidence that the impression he got was that plaintiff had obtained £10, 000' by some sharp practice, or by some means he was not j entitled to. There was no explanation that would lead one to the conclusion that the money was obtained honestly. He had read the com-' ment in The Opotiki News, and had been asked if it. was correct, and had replied that all that was said at the meeting. C. Shove, farmer, in evidence said that defendant during the meeting had stated that "Big Bill got £10,000 illegitimately." He took it as an inference that plaintiff got money by some shady practice. .Defendant gave no explanation as to his use of the word "illegitimately" —it was just a bare charge. The general nature of the. address was hostile toward Mr Sullivan, and several other names were mentioned during the evening. Witness read the account of the meeting in The Opotiki News and thought it was fair comment. Mr Sullivan's Evidence Mr W. Sullivan, company managing director, and Member of Parliament for the. Bay of Plenty, said (Continued in next column)

in evidence that at the time of the alleged defamatory statement he was a Member of Parliament. He had been in business for about 30 years, and during that period he had carried out building and construction work throughout the Bay of Plenty. He heard on the day of the. election of certain remarks made by Mr Jonasen, and he was concerned about the statement in which it was alleged that he came in possession of £10,000 illegitimately. The other statements did not concern him very much. It was generally understood that such statements had been made and he telephoned to Mr T. G'. Johnson, and asked for Mr Jonasen's movements and that Mr Jonasen call' on plaintiff. This was not done. When Mr Jonasen failed to call and discuss the matter, witness discussed the statement with some friends, and it was felt that he was entitled to a withdrawal. Defendant did not accede to a request for a withdrawal and two or three letters passed between the parties. Press Withdrawal Plaintiff: "I am prepared to accept a complete withdrawal providing it is published in The Opotiki News —in the town where the statement" originated and that is the. attitude I have taken up all along," Mr lies said that there: did not appear to be very much between them. Defendant was not prepared to advertise an apology but would make an explanation to the court j and the paper could publish that explanation. i Magistrate's Remarks ' The magistrate said that defendant had done in his letter what he should have done on the eve of the election —to say that he. was sorry. It seemed like a storm in a teacup. Defendant should have been advised to withdraw his statement. Had defendant expressed his regret at the beginning it would have cost him nothing. He should now pay sufficient to cover the cost of the case. He suggested that The Opotiki News, should publish portion of defendant's letter of apology as it had printed statements made by defendant. The magistrate then read that portion of the letter referred to.

The following extracts from a letter from Messrs Woodward and lies. Barristers and Solicitors, Gisborne, to Messrs Buddie and Otley, Solicitors, Whakatane, and which was handed into the court, are published at the suggestion of the Magistrate:— On behalf of Mr Jonasen we write to you in the hope, that this unfortunate case can be ended without a Court hearing. Mr Jonasen in his statement to us said:—"I- said that Mr Sullivan had broadcasted that the State houses could have been built £100 cheaper than they were and I said if that is so then if Big Bill had built 100 State houses, at £100 each he has got £10,000 illegitimately. In using the word I did not intend to convey any motive of dishonesty—that was not. my intention. At the: conclusion of. the political contest I publicly congratulated the plaintiff and shook hands with him."