JURY UNABLE TO AGREE IN LIBEL ACTION

Chronicle (Levin), 3 April 1946, Page 8

JURY UNABLE TO AGREE IN LIBEL ACTION

—Press Association

No Appiication or Comment by Counsel

By Telegraph-

AUCKLAND, April 2. The hearing of the action for aLeged lihel brought by the secretary of tiie Auckland Drivers' Uuion, Lawrence derard Matthews, against Wilson anci norton, Ltd., puhlishers of the New Zealand ITerald, which was commenced in the Supreme Court last Thursday, encled tonight. After retirements lasting a full five hours, the jury failed to corne to any decision. ^ There was a considerable attendance of spectators in the Court when the jury returned at 7.55 p.m. The foreman reported that they were unable to agree and said it was very doubtfui that they would, even after further consideration. The Hon. Mr. Justice Fair pointed out that, as they had been out for more than three hours, the Court could accept a decision by a three-fourths' majority and at his direction they retired to make a further effort to reach a decision. At 8.35 p.m. the jury returned again, the foreman this time reporting thac there was no possibility of an agreement. His Honour, in discharging the jury, said that was unfortunate, but* each man was entitled to come to his own decision. Counsel made no comment or appiication. The address to the jury by counsel for the defence opened the fifth day of 1 the hearing of the alleged libel action | brought by Lawrence Gerard Matthews, a union secretary,, against Wilson and Horton, Ltd., proprietors of the New Zealand Herald. Later in the morning counsel for plaintiff delivered his address. Piaintifi claimed £600 damages, the claim being based on an editorial j which appeared in the newspaper on Septemher 12. Four issues for the jury to consider were presented this morning as follcws, were presented tis morning as follow: (1) Were the words complained of dafa matory of plaintiff? (2) Were they true in substance and in fact? (3) Were they fair comment? (4) Damages, if any? Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., and Mr. F. H. Haigh appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. P. Richmond, with hira Mr. A. K: North, for defendant company. "This is a case of" national importance," said Mr. North in his address to t.he jury. "It has, I think, been discussed all over the country. It raises matters of the greatest public importance, becauss you here tcday are con- ! sidering the right of a person to speak j forcibly and ireely on the conducfc of| people in an illegal and unlawful trans- j aclion. I don't know what- your politi-i cal affiliations may be. If you or any! of you are supporters of the present Government, then you, more than any i others, should be seriously concernad. ' ' OBJECTION RAISED. Raising an objection to this argument, Mr. Johnstone asked what had politics to do with the case. His Honour agreed that Mr. John stone was more or less justiiied in his objection. He thought counsel shoaid avoid as far as possible any refer'ences to the way in which the political views of any members of the jxqy might af-fec-t them in arriving at their decision, Everyone in this country, contijued 'Mr. North, must he gravely concerned with the course of the events which had emerged from the evidence in the case, the whole of • which centred around j plaintiff 's association in the dispute. | Mr. North referred to New Zealand' s industrial legislation and said it was no use having organised groups taking the law into their own hands and ihreatening the machinery which had been built up with s'uch great caro. There was no more insidious attack that could be J made on the system than " that . v/hieh .came frpm thet-workers themselves. In evei-y action! fdr libel plaintiff undertook the onus of establishing that any statement made against him was libelious. If the statement had attp.cked Matthews in his private life, then it mjght well be said that the statement was libellons and defendant would have been obliged to come to Court and prcve that it was true. What the Herald had done was to attack Matthews in his public life. One could not examine the case in any narrow way, said counsel, who added that, when a man came out inco public, he had got to be able to "take it,"

"POWERFUL PERSONALITIES" Sketching the history of the bus drivers' dispute from 1943, Mr. North asked, "Does anyone suggest that a union secretary is same quiet, littie, inconspicuous person who takes down the minutes of meetings? Of course he doesn't. Everyone in this country knows that union secretaries are pdwerful personalities and persons able to enforce things which they think are right for their members." Counsel for plaintiff had said that Munro had a warped mind, but unike Matthews, he had gone into the box and stood up to cross-examination, continued Mr. North. The evidence he had given must have satisfied the jury *ftat he wrote sincerely and was expressing his honest opinions. Dealing with the wording of the article, Mr. North said there was no doubt that Matthews, a man who did not hesitate to malign the Judiciary and the Arhiration Court, was a baleful influence, leading the bus men into a whole series of illegal strikes. There was not the slightest doubt- that the men were gulled by their leaders and Matthews was one of .the most prominent leaders The remarks made by Matthews, suc'h as the one about "wielding the big stick," v/ere evidence of his love of nower. There were his outrageous attacks on the Government and the Arbitration Court and his contemptuous references to the Judiciary. All were characteristic of a man loving power.

WAS PLAINTIFF DEFAMED? The jury had.heen told that it was a case oi national lmportance, said Mr. Johnstone in his address. It was his submission that it was nothing of the sort. It was a case between the New Zealand Herald and a union ecretary, and that was all it was about. The facts were within a fairly narrow compass; what the union or the men had done was outside the point. The question was one of whether plaintiff had been defamed. If, as was submitted, the words used were defamatory, it could be assumed that they were false and published maliciously. All the re£t was inconsequential and for that reason there had been no need to put plaintiff into the witness box. They were not there to discuss a whole lot of matters that 'had been canva'ssed during the case. Plaintiff -•could not be deprived of -his right to damages because he had not been allowed to be made the target of further invective and humiliation. That was why he had not gone into the box. The first quistion to be considered was whether the words used were defamatory— whether they tende'd to lower plaintiff in the estimation of his fellows. It was his submission that anyone who said that a union secretary was a demagogue ho.ding the people up to ransom depicted that man in a

grossly defamatory way. "You may take it for certain," Mr. Johnstone told the jury, "that the writer had intended to use the words complained of as a term of denunciation. ' ' The word "gulled" always purported some notion of moral turpitude, and the writer had proceeded to revile Matthews by saying he would be of no significance if he were not a union secretary. "If you read the whole of that ar'cicle, you cannot but be impressed by the defamatory auality of the words in it. We submit that Matthews is not a public man at all; he is a union secretary, while public mep are politicians. Matthews is not made a public man because ou six occasions he was interviewed by the Herald. ' ' The defence of justification was usually put forward as a last resort, because such a plea tneant that all the words were true,' and the proof must be as broad as the libs.1. It would not do to say that Munro had read. the whole lot of articles in his own paper and inferred a lot of things. That would no more do than the Law of Genesis. Defendant had to prove that all the words were true, that Matthews was a demagogue, and that he had gulled the menor, in other words, duped them. No proof had been offered that he was a demagogue who held the public to rah som, >nor had it been proved that he had used his powers in any improper manner or that he had pandered to the men's passions and prejudices in order to obj tain power for himself. "We S'ubmit that, whatever you may j think of the conauct of the drivers in | cefusing to work, there is no evidence | that Matthews incited it or appjoved of it," said Mr. Johnstone. "Not one | of the 1500 men was brought here to i say that he had gulled them, or fooled J them, if you like. ' ' i Mr. Johnstone urged the jury not to consider the suggestion made by Mr. | North that small or contemptuous dam- ! ages could be awarded. He asked the ; jury not to mock plaintiff further by i awarding nominal damages, but to up- : hold the right the law gave every citij een whether he was a powerful news | paper magnate or a humbie union sec- ! retary. i JUDGE'S SUMMING UP I "It has been urged on one hand that i the questions you have to decide are f-i i great national importance and on the other that you are to confine yourselves to the sole question as to the individuai rights of plaintiff and defendant as to the alleged defamatory statement," said his Honour in summing up. On that aspect he would say that the jury's primary duty was to determine the questions of fact and the respective iegal rights of the 'parties. Libel. was the written pnblication of a false and defamatory statement and it mnst be substantially untrue to give cause for action. The statement must also he a defamatory one, calculated to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule. It was defamatory also if it was false and calculated to injure him in his profession or calling. In this case defendant had undertaken to prove thax all the statements were true in substance and fact. The jury Was, there fore, to presume that the statement.. were untrue unless satisfied to the con trary beyond feasonable doubt. Ho\vever, there was a right to criticise the

conduct of another when it was a mat ter in which the pubiic might be con cerned, and that right was one law con sidered to be of great value to .the com munity and a right which it was highly desirable should be preserved. However, the law provided safeguards against it's being -abused, and statea that people were" entitled to exercise that right of public criticism as iong as it was fair. It was established as the standard of fairness that the person who made the criticism must be bona fide in his criticism. He must criticise not from any indirect, malicious or wrong motive, but purely from a desire to state honestly and fairly his opinion of the conduct of a body or a person. The law also said that not oniy must he be honest, but his comment must also be founded upon facts which a reasonaoie man might fairly consider to justify comment. This was the standard by which the jury was to consider the question of fair comment. TWO CIIARGESrMADE After re-reading the editorial to the jury, his Honour said that to ^nd it de famatory did not necessarily mean that it was actionable. The substance of the editorial appeared to make two charges — that Matthews deceived men into thinking that it was in their interests to take direct action, rather than follow lawful means of settling their disputes, and that he was led to do this not primarily in the interests of the men, but mainly because of his desire to show and retain his power. On the second

question, the jury was to decide whether the evidence had satisfied it that that these two charges were true. The substance of defendant 's caae was that evidence had been adduced showing that, throughout the transactions which started in December, 1943, plaintiff consistently advocated direct action and rejected suggestions of thc Minister represe'nting the Government, and continued to do so.