Mayor And Newspaper In Libel Action

Chronicle (Levin), 7 December 1948, Page 7

Mayor And Newspaper In Libel Action

Bresa Asscctat^xu

(Per

AUCKLAND, Dee. 6. /riie Mayor of Auckland, Mr. Joh.11 Andrew Cliarles Allum, merchant, and Wilson and Horton Ltd., publishers of the New Zealahd Herald, are defendants in a clainj for alleged libel whicli opened in the Supreme (Jourt today before Mr. Justice Northeroft and a special jury. The hearing is expected to oceupy a weelc. c Plaintiff is Dove Myer Robinson, company manager, and president of the Auckland and Suburban Drainage League, who claims from each defendant £5,00 general damages. Mr. Trevor Henry and Mr. A. K. Turner are appearing for plaintiff, Mr. A. Lv. North, K.O. and Mr. 11. J. Butler for Allum and Mr. C. P. Richmond for Wilson and Horton Ltd. The claim is based on a statement by Allum published in the Ilerald on the eve of last year's municipal elections, criticising a circular issued by the Drainage League. It is submitted that the words meant that plaintiff- was responsible for- issuing a circular containing untrue statements and false implications ealculated to alarm the public unnecessarilv" and that plaintiff was a party to a flagraiit attempt improperlv to interfere with responsible iiubiic meii, was guilty of a wicked action, was without sense of responsibilitv and actuated- bv some ulterior motive. lt was submitted that plaintiff had been greatly iirjured in character and reputalion and had been brought into hatred, ridicule and conteinpt.

The defeiiee denied that the words were published falseiy or maliciously or that they were published concerning plaintiff. It held thaf they did not bcar anv oi' the meanings alleged and also that they were truc and fair comment without malice, in the phblic interest. In his opening address, Mr. Henry said the words conipiained of were published just before the last municipal elections. Allum had been chainuan ot the Drainage Board since its inception in 1944 and Robinson *had been president of the Drainage League since Mareh, 1946. After reading the article which contained the passage conipiained of, Mr. Henry said the words would be a reflection on anyone 's character. The first defence was that the words did not refer to Robinson, l>ut there would be no difficulty in eomuig to the conclusion that they hit at Robinson. His name was mentioned early in the article and it was well known that lie had been proininent in drainage mat I ters. It was also stated in the defence that the words were not defamalory and that they were true in substance and in fact. Another defence was that they were fair comment. Mr. Henry said they were not comment but were cliarges of a base nature. Plaintiff had done 110 more than exercise his right of free speech. The hearing was adjourned.