AUCKLAND LIBEL ACTION

Chronicle (Levin), 2 April 1946, Page 3

AUCKLAND LIBEL ACTION

■rPress Association

•WORKERS GULLED, CLAIMS EDITOR EVIDENCE CONCLUDES

Bv TeleuravlLr-.

AUCKLAND, Aprll 1. The duties- oi a- Aewspaper editor were outlined in the Supreme Court, today, by Eeslie. K. Munro, the writer of the editorial which appeared in the New Zealand Herald on September .12 last, and which is the subject of the libel action against Wilson and Horton, Ltd., proprietors of the paper, brought by Lawrence Gerard Matthews, who claiins £600 damages. The case is being heard before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury. Witness said that he had been the editor of the Herald since August, 1942, and associate editor for a year before that. He was a barrister and solicitor. After giving lengthy evidence conceiming the dispute, he said he conceived that it was his duty as editor of a daily paper to express the views of the paper on a matter of such moment as that now under discussion. He felt that this strike was the culmination of the leaaership of Matthews since the beginning of January, 1944. He felt that Matthews' act and propaganda, with that of. the other leaders, had misled the men to believe that they couid not get justice from the ATbitration Court, that the Government was on the side of the employers, and that no fair and prompt decision could be obtained from the Tribunal appointed by the Government. It was considerations of this character that influenced him in writing the leader, and he thought it was his duty as editor, and on behalf of the paper, to express in strong terms the views of the paper on the irresponsible strike, and the grave responsibility of the workers and leaders for that strike. ' ' C AREFULLY CONSIDERED ' ' Cross-examined by Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., Munro said that he was a journalist of comparatively short experience. He was bred as a lawyer, but he would not presume to say that he knew all about the law of libel, though he had studied it. He considered that the article complained of was not libellous. The article was most carefully considered and he had discussed it with his colleagues. Mr. Johnstone: What justification had you for saying plaintiff was a demagogue? Witness: .1 considered he was a demagogue because,.in respect of the statements which I have mentioned in my evidence, I believed he was piaying on the feelings of the men. Continuing, witness said that, when Matthews said that deregistration by the Government was a case of "wielding the big stick," ' 'submerging the grievances of the men," and that the employers were "assisted by the Government," he considered there was nothing more calculated to incite the feelings of the men. He had no doubt that Matthews intended these statements to reach the men and he thought a great number of them read the Herald. Mr. Johnstone: Do you flatter yourself everybody reads the Herald? Witness: Many do. You said in your address that the Herald circulation was 110,000. Mr. Johnstone: From. varioug state-

ments made by Matthews speaking to the men and nOt to reporters, you were entitled to infer that he gulled them? Witness: From them and from statements made by Matthews subsequently. I looked at the whole dispute. Matthews was the man to whom the reporters went for information. PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW You counted this malterial as pretty poisonous stuff? — I regarded it as comprising statements influencing the men to direct action, and I thought it in the public interest that what was going on should be known. At the time you did not make a singie comment on it? — I think there were comments editorially. I did not writ§ them myself. ; It can be said that the men got nowhere?' — I do not agree with that view, because they had a decision from the chairman of the disputes commxttee which dealt with several matters, including double time rates for Sunday work, four hours minimum for Sunday work and adherence to the existing ofl duty arrangements. I regarded these as considerable adjustments. In time of war I thought there should be some kind of stability in industrial matters. In other words you were against any steps being taken by these men to improve their conditions at that time? — 1 thought they had improved their conditions. I did not feel there was any need for precipitate action to be taken. Witness said there was no reason why the men should not press for an agreement provided they did it by constitutional methods. It seemed to witness that Matthews was the men's leadej, Mr. Johnstone: That leader was dethroned? Witness: Yes, and he got back. Some of them had been white-anting as I understand it. In re-examinatiou by Mr. Richmond, witness said he would "take "wielding the big stick' * to mean intimidation by a man who was using unlawful means. This concluded the case for defendant and Mr. Johnstone said he did not pro pose to call further evidence for plain tiff. His Honour adjourned ■ the hearing until tomorrow in order to discuss the question of issues "with counsel in chambers.