THE STRIKE "BULLETIN."

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14839, 3 December 1913, Page 9

THE STRIKE " BULLETIN."

ALLEGED LIBELLOUS PUBLICATION.

STRIKE LEADERS BEFORE THE CCJURT.

INFORMATIONS WITHDRAWN. There was an unusually large crowd at the Magistrate's Coart at noon yesterday, the time at which E. J. Howard, jF. C. Ellis, J. McCombs, H. Hunter, J. Thorn, D. G. Sullivan, and F. Lurch, who were alleged to bo members of the Strike Committee, were summoned to appear before Sir H. W, Bishop, S.M., to show cause why they should not be prosecuted under eection 11 of the Law of Libel Act, 1910, for the publication of a defamatory libel in a publication called the "Christchurch Strike Bulletin," dated November 26th, under tho heading "Scabs —Male and Female." Tlie applications were beard separately in camera in the Magistrate , * room, the Press not being admitted. The Magistrate said lie did not mind newspaper representatives being pre~ cent, but the enquiry was only a preliminary one to see whether there couid be a prosecution. Otherwise, if a prosecution were ordered, it would mean two public hearings instead of one. Mr T. W. Stringer, K.C., appeared for the prosecution, Mr bpratt lor the defendant Sullivan, and Mr Cassidy for the defendants Howard and Hunter. These were, the only defendants called, the applications being dismissed. .Mr rt. <-!. Woodliain, secretary of the Strike Committee, was also present. D. G. Sullivan, was the hrst person to be examined. He said he could not swear that ho was not a member of the Strike Committee, for it was a largo and undefined body. ne was, however, not a member of the executive. He knew nothing about the issuing of tho "Strike Bulletin," and had not written the offensive paragraph, nor been consulted in any way whatever vxih. record to its publication.

H. Hunter denied any knowledge of tho olieuuiug paragrapn as did also 15." J. Howard. Neither of them could say who wrote it. Howard said that during his absence from h:s ottico, his 16-year-old daughter had taken soiao manuscript, without his knowledge, round to the person who had been sub-editing tho "btriktV Bulletin." When Risked wiiy a notice appeared in tho ''Striko liulletin' , asking that communications s-hould bo addressed to him, he said this refonv.l merely to correspondence. Under the circumstances, Mr liishop had no altornativo but to order that no warrants bo issued, and tho iniorniations against the remaining dofondants wero witlidrawn.

Mr Dishopj in examining th© de-fert-dnnis, described tho paragraph as absolutely vilo and übommabic. Ho hoped tho respectable portion of Labour, both Arbitrationist and Fcdcraticaist, would take a pubiie opportunity of disavowing any responsibility for such an abominable ami vilo paragraph. Tho defendants saiu this would be done. They expressed their disapproval of tho paragraph, which, they said, they did not authorise, and did not see until it was published. They did not know who formed the Strike Committee. The original Strike Couimit;eo had been dissolved ou November 24th, two days bofore tho publication of the paragraph. It wns also denied that the "i>triko Bulletin" was circulated after tho paragraph in question was discovered, tho eheot being withdrawn. Mr Vfoodham produced a minute of tho Strike Committee, dated Novem-. ber 26th. appointing a committee to censor all publications iv tho "Bulletin." After tho dismissing of tho infortna-. tions against .Sullivan, Hunter, am? Howard, Mr Stringer withdrew tho other informations, on being Assured by counsel thnt the rest of the defendants would testify on the same lines. The result of the enquiry was received with cheers by a crowd of eympathisers who we.ro waiting outside.