MAYOR SUES FOR LIBEL

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22506, 14 September 1938, Page 4

MAYOR SUES FOR LIBEL

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR £2O POLITICAL OPPONENT’S PAMPHLET “BOUNDS OF DECENT LANGUAGE EXCEEDED” Holding that the language used by the defendant “dragged political controversy into the gutter,” Mr Raymond Femer, S.M., yesterday gave judgment for £2O in a libel action brought by Robert Mafeking Macfarlane, Mayor of Christchurch, against Berthold Ahlfeld, a political opponent. The plaintiff, represented by Mr K. G. Archer, claimed £IOO damages in the Magistrate’s Court because of a pamphlet issued by Ahlfeld, on the ground that it was false and defamatory. The defendant, who conducted his own case, claimed in a long statement that the words complained of had been used in a political and not a personal sense, but the Magistrate did not uphold that contention.

“I think the plaintiff had just cause and grounds for complaint,” said the Magistrate in his judgment. “What was said greatly exceeds the bounds of decent language, and was personal and abusive.”

Such words as “cowardly assassinator of women” were injurious and defamatory to the standing of any public man. It had crossed his mind, the Magistrate continued, that the words complained of might be mere vulgar abuse, but in his opinion it went much further than that, and the words complained of were in the form of a conclusion of a direct line of argument. Defendant had claimed that his remarks had been meant only in a political and not in a personal sense, but he did not see how this ground could be taken. The phrases complained of were nothing if not personal. The real defence to the action seemed to be a sense of grievance about an advertisement published by plaintiff in the Christchurch “Sun” three years ago. “No Justification” Whether the words hi that advertisement were capable of a defamatory meaning was doubtful, and the Court was not called on to decide whether it was. But whether it was or not was certainly no justification for the wording of the pamphlet, and in any case until recently Ahlfeld had not told Macfarlane that he wanted an apology or withdrawal, or that he was even aggrieved at the wording of the pamphlet. The libel was premeditated, the Magistrate held, because before it was made Ahlfeld had written to the plaintiff threatening to use the advertisement of three years before as a means of “bashing” plaintiff in the mayoral election. ~ If it was necessary to prove malice, the Magistrate added, he would have had no hesitation in declaring that the publication was malicious. Probably the extravagant language used in the pamphlet was sufficient to dam it in the eye ( s of most men, said the Magistrate, in discussing the damages to be awarded. However, in all communities there was a small section prepared to believe such language, and the plaintiff had undoubtedly suffered some annoyance, for which he was entitled to redress. The damage would be fixed at £2O. A request for witnesses’ expenses for plaintiff was not allowed. The cause of the action was the publication of a one-page circular, m the form of an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M.J. Savage, in which Ahlfeld, alleging that Macfarlane had libelled Ahlfeld’s parents, asked a number of questions about plaintiff’s fitness to hold his positions in public life, and also used other terms in referring to him. Full Statement of Claim In the full statement of claim plaintiff stated that at all times material to the action he held, and still holds, the office of Mayor of Christchurch. He also stated that on or about August 3, 1038, Ahlfeld falsely and maliciously Wrote and published of Macfarlane and of him as Mayor of Christchurch, in a document sent to James Lawrence Hay, company manager, the following words: — OPEN LETTER AND CHALLENGE TO PRIME MINISTER ' 59 Chancellor street, , Christchurch. August 3, 1938. Right Hon. M. J. Savage, House of Representatives, Wellington. “Dear Sir, — •‘Much has been said by A ' tja P.°¥ r Cabinet Ministers with regard to dirty election campaign’ and political slander’ prosecuted by their opponents, and you are reported jn The August 2, 1938, as having made refer-, ence to these matters, in effect, when sneaking at a Labour social given in your honour at Christchurch on July 30 ‘‘I noticed that you expressed much concern regarding the criticism, etc., that you allege has been whispered by the Tory Party representatives in connexion with the Labour candidate, R. M. Macfarlane’s, intention to endeavour to win the Christchurch North 86 "Now, sir, as one who has proved to the citizens of Christchurch that I do not fear to speak my mind from the public platform, and in the Press, I have not concerned myself with the domestic quarrels between, Labour and Tory parties. But when you make an attempt to uphold R. M. Macfarlane it is time for me to interject to expose the vile act that this member of the Labour Party has been guilty of; and I herein challenge you to announce in the Christchurch newspapers your answers to the following interrogations when you have perused the facts I shall publish in this pamphlet:— “(1) Do you think that R. M. Macfarlane comes under the category of being a decent citizen? “(f) Do you think he is fit to hold the position of Mayor of Christchurch? “(3) Do you think that he is a fit candidate to represent your party in the General Election? “In reminding you that I am distributing this pamphlet in Christchurch, in addition to sending you a copy under registered cover, I also remind you that the prestige of the Labour Party is involved. Therefore, your silence regarding the challenge made to you herein must be your declaration, in effect, that you—as a right-thinking citizen—decide that R. M. Macfarlane is not fit to hold any public position. “The facts are as follows;—In connexion with the* 1935 Christchurch City Council election campaign Mr R. M. Macfarlane was responsible, for the following advertisement being published in the (late) Christchurch ‘Sun’ on May 4 that year;— *We know you are not silly enough to be misled by Mr Ahlfeld. A European community can look after its own affairs with his interference.’ , “Now, Mr Savage, as my mother was born to English parents in your own country, Australia, I should like to know what you think of this cowardly

and vile libel against one of your own countrymen. And as my father was ‘white by birth and white in principles I should like you and the citizens of this Dominion to decide whether or not R. M. Macfarlane is a credit to his own mother in saying they were not Europeans. “Because I am above taking action for libel for financial gain I merely compelled the editor of the Christchurch ‘Sun’ to publish an alternative in his paper on May 6, 1935. It read as follows:—‘Mr B. Ahlfeld, honorary organiser for the Independent League, considers that a reference to him in an advertisement on Saturday stating that a European community can look after its own affairs without his interference implies, without warrant of fact that he is not of European extraction. He states he is a native of New Zealand, and he fought in both the South African and Great Wars. “So you see that this cowardly assassinator of women’ in lying statements did not only publish a vile libel against a returned soldier—he also libelled the mother who reared this exserviceman to fight for his country. “Surely it is a scandalous state of affairs to know that men who offered their lives to protect the women of their country returned from wars to have their own mothers assassinated in the public mind by such men as R. M. Macfarlane.” “Damage to Prestige” The statement of claim held that the defendant, by his circular, meant that the plaintiff, Macfarlane, was not a fit person to hold the position of Mayor of Christchurch or any public position, or to represent the Labour Party as a candidate in the General Election; that his character and conduct were such as to involve and damage the prestige of the party with which he is associated; that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is in agreement with the defendant that the plaintiff is not a fit person to hold any public office; anti that the plaintiff is lacking in those elementary qualities of honesty ana ability which are expected of a decent citizen. , it The claim further set out that the defendant falsely and maliciously published the document aforesaid to Messrs A. F. Stacey, H. M. Blazey, and T. F. O’Connor, citizens of Christchurch, and to other persons in the city of Christchurch. Further, the defendant had refused to withdraw the defamatory statements contained in the said document, or to refrain from further publication of the The plaintiff therefore claimed £IOO in damages. , . Opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Archer outlined Mr Macfarlane s political career. He emphasised that the claim was not brought to gam monetary damages—because the plaintiff had given Ahlfeld a chance to withdraw or apologise—but to clear plaintiff from anv suspicions Ahlfeld s attack might have aroused and to teach Ahlfeld that there were limits to which he could go in political controversy. The Evidence The first witness called was Arthur Francis Stacey, a land agent, who said that he and a man named Biazey were in a city tearooms when Ahlfeld came in and handed them a circular. Ahlfeld had been carrying a packet of the circulars. He also showed witness an envelope addressed to the Prime Minister. Ahlfeld had said the circular would "get” Mr Macfarlane. and put him in his place. Witness described Ahlfeld’s attitude towards Macfarlane as venomous. Witness advised Ahlfeld to drop the whole matter. To Mr Ahlfeld witness repeated that ne saw an envelope addressed to Mr Savage He said he knew the definition of perjury. Asked if there had been a long debate on the circular, witness replied; “Well, we couldn’t get rid of you. Mr Ahlfeld. We were sitting down having our tea!” “I’d like your Worship to take a note of the attitude of this witness.” said defendant, after he had further sought an answer from witness about the length of time the discussion in the tearooms took. “You didn’t give us much chance to say anything, candidly.” said witness, replying to further questioning by the defendant about tlje tearooms discussion. J “Not Very Favourable” ' “I notice it is not very favourable to you,” said the Magistrate after he had again been asked by Ahlfeld to take notice of the attitude of the witness. The Magistrate also said he did not think the witness was evading the questions. „ . Witness denied strongly that he was a National Party organiser or was employed to raise money for the National Party, and re-examined by Mr Archer said he had no political connexions with the Labour Party. k C. M. Blazey said he had been with Stacey in the tea-rooms when Ahlfeld came in. Stacey had told Ahlfeld the pamphiet was scurrilous and witness had said the same. About a week later Ahlfeld had met witness, and Ahlfeld had said then that he hoped Macfarlane would take action about the letter, as he would “get” him. , To Ahlfeld witness said it was correct that defendant had asked Stacey to have the National Party print some of the circulars, and Stacey had said the pamphlet was scurrilous. Company Manager’s Evidence

J. L. Hay, a company manager, said he received a circular similar to the one produced in Court. Witness read the circular, and then sent it on to the Town Clerk, Mr J. S. Neville. He sent the pamphlet on, because he thought it was the action of a decent citizen to let the Mayor become acquainted with the contents of a circular which might have been sent out against him without his knowledge. To Ahlfeld witness admitted that he believed he did once say that if defendant came back to Hay’s. Ltd., he would be thrown out. Explaining that the witness added that Ahlfeld had sent him a scurrilous private letter about witness’s work for charity, and some of witness’s staff had said that if Ahlfeld came into the shop again he would be given a cold bath. “It might not have been a bad idea at that, added the witness. Mayor’s Statement

Robert Mafeking Macfarlane, union secretary and Mayor of Christchurch, said he had known defendant personally for some years. Qn August 4 witness received a circular through the post and consulted his solicitors immediately. His solicitors wrote to Ahlfeld asking for a withdrawal and apology, and witness would decidedly have accepted a withdrawal and an apology. Witness later saw Ahlfeid’s reply to that, in which he refused to make an apology. In 1935 witness said he was one of three organisers for the Labour Party’s municipal election campaign. He had not prepared the advertisement published on May 4, and he did not then, and did not now, consider that the statement could bear the interpretation put 1 on it by Ahlfeld. Nor was it defamatory. He had no recollection of any demand for an apology by Ahlfeld Had he known Ahlfeid’s feeling in the matter he would have joined the editor of the “Sun” in publishing an explanation. “I have received many letters from the defendant,” said witness. “Most of them have gone straight into the wastepaper basket." At the time the last circular had been received witness had not begun his campaign for the Christchurch North seat. Neither in public nor private had he attacked Ahlfeld. Ahlfeld, who did not go into the box,’ said in his own defence that the whole dispute was entirely a political matter and was not intended to attack the Mayor’s personal character at all. The pamphlet had been meant in a political sense and meant that from his want ot judgment in attacking people plaintiff was unfit to bold bis public office. “At the most It is only personal abuse In answer to political abuse,” added the defendant.

Defendant quoted legal authorities in support of his own claim that there was no libel. He claimed also that the words "assassinator of women” were moderate in their context. The Minister for Public Works, the Hon. B. Semple,

used stronger language than that. In any case it a public man made insinuations that involved women, did he not assassinate their character in the public mind, and should he object to fair criticism? Persons making irresponsible statements should be prepared for criticism of them. “If anyone has been hurt, it is me," said Mr Ahlfeld. “I will carry to the grave with me the memory of what Mr Macfarlane said about my people,” he concluded.