LABOUR AND LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 985, 28 November 1910, Page 8

LABOUR AND LIBEL

"MUCH TO BE REGRETTED." MR.: CAREY OBTAINS DAMAGES. -'AN ABUSIVE TIRADE." Judgment was delivered by the Chief •lustico (Sir Robert Stout) on Saturday in theilibel action in which Elijah John Carey,. president of tho Wellington Trades and Labour Council, and secretary of the Wellington Cooks' and .Waiters' Union and-other Labour bodies, , claimed £501 damages from William Pierrepont Black, proprietor of' "The .New Zealand Leader," Auckland, arid asked for an injunction, to prevent the. defendant repeating the offence. '• His; Honour, in his judgment, said the writings complained of appeared in a, paper'.called "The New Zealand Leader," on September 2 last.- The head -lines were "A Lying Labour Traitor," '.'Carey Wants a Government • Job,'V "Repudiates, tho New Zealand Federation of Labour." It was a long article,.and,it alleged that tho plaintiff was. a traitor to the Labour cause, an ~ impostor and a liar, that he was guilty of.-. double-dealing, and it practically urged the Labour people to dispense with his services, he being a paid' seryant of some Labour unions. 'The defendant had pleaded that .the statements" in the article wero .true, ; w!iere-they were statements of fact, and * whore the article consisted of comment, that the comment .was fair and , bona-fide comment. The facts oh which the defendant relied to warrant his commenfand to prove his' assertions' were three: The .first was. that on Aug-, " ust' 29, 1910, Carey had an interview ..with a Wellington representative of "The New Zealand Herald," in regard, , to the amalgamation of the trade union's '•', into -one New Zealand Federation of. Labqur. .. The only single passage that .the defendant could rely upon as being some warrant' for his comment was this: " 'Political action , scoff the spokesmen of tho Miners' Federation,. and then wander into dreams of a classconscious organised revolution:- Their method is the only correct one, .they bombastically assert. They aro on the only true path. We, of tho other school of thought, are completely in the wilderness. It is-useless to reason with our rod, flag friends. They are. simply dogmatic doctrinaires, as Keir Hardie says." Surely this was nothing more than, an opinion that tho. method of obtaining redress for workers should' bo by, political action, and criticising the opinions,' that' seem to have been es-, pressed-: by some spokesman or spokes-* men or others of the Miners'- Federation. There was nothing certainly in ■ this article to warrant.either the statements or comment that appeared 'in . ''The Leader." J" Another thing relied onthat was published. by' the plaintiff was an article written by him on the Labour view of the position regarding the strike atthe. ■State coal mine.- In the "Leader" article there was no reference to the strike in' tho State coal mine, but it was assumed in; the - article that what the plaintiff , wrote was dealing with the : strike at the Blackball mine. ■ That was :not so'. The line that the' plaintiff took up in his;.article was.that, as this was a State industry, the miners ought not to have struck,.'or otherwise the agitation! for further State industries would ■be grievously .injured.' His -.Honour could see nothing in this article to warrant either, the,comment or statements make in "The Leader." ,It was a moderate article, pointing out how the strike connected with the State coal mine was foolish and inopportune, and tended to weaken the political position of the workers. .-..;' _. The other matter referred to as showing that the plaintiff was a traitor was what took place in: an annual confer- " ence of trades and'labourcouncils held in Auckland last July. It appeared that . the plaintiff and others were, as dele, gates, urged to. vote for what is called the nationalisation or socialisation of industries. The matter came,up for discussion before * the conference. Tile , chairman ruled that the rules could .not be altered.. This.ruling was ' apg roved by a majority of the delegates. . us Honour could not see in that how j the charge as stated in "The Leader" could bo sustained. ' above were the three .things on ,'which reliance was placed by the defendant. In his Honour's opinion 'they utterly : failed to show that the statements of fact made in "The Leader" were true, or that the comments made on.the plaintiff were fair, and bona . fide. Tho article was really one loii" statement of abuse, and it was only charitable to. suppose that the, writer ; was' unaware of the , meaning of the English language, for he used words in criticising the plaintiff's action tliat ~ were entirely unwarranted by any facts . adduced in Court. "■■ . • '" His Honour n-.is therefore of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, "i think, however, tliat I must say, he continued, "that- it is much to bo regretted that thoso who advo-cai-o tho. 'brotherhood of man' and 'individual liberty , should show, if this paper, 'Ihc Leader,' is a sample of ■ their advocacy, ibat their-ideals'do not always influence their conduct. The do- : • fendant says that ho was not tho writer of the article, and that if he had been'in his office at the time the article would have been couched in different language. I am clad that ho made tnat statement, for ho shows that he realises that no cause is well served by abusive tirades; but I regret that seeing that ho has said so, ho should not have corrected tho articlo in a subsequent issue before the writ was issued. He has; by pleading tho truth of tlie.r.rticlo and fair comment not only adopted tho article, but. defended it as true. ■'. The only question, therefore, ■ that I have to consider is tho question of-damages, and I do not know if tho full damages claimed would bo too much to give the plaintiff under the circumstances. I recognise, however, what tho plaintiff has stated through' his. counsel, that tho defendant is°a poor man, and to give excessive damages against a man who has no-means seems to be of little use. If, however, I mako the damages moderate he may be able to compensate the plaintiff, at all events, for the cost and expense to which he has been put in de- . fending his fair nanio... I assess the damages 'at £70, with costs according to scale, witnesses' expenses, and disbursements."- ' .-. .•-..-■■.

The question of an injunction was reserved, his Honour stating that plaintiff could bring it up again if defendant offended again. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff. Tho defendant appeared in person.