SUIT FOR £2000 FOR ALLEGED LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 283, 24 August 1920, Page 6

SUIT FOR £2000 FOR ALLEGED LIBEL

CASE OF HUTT COUNTY. RANGER A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL HEARING TO BE CONTINUED TO-DAY The signatories to a certain petition or letter sent to the Hutt County Council in January last in reference to tho conduct at election time of Eobert Charles Dick, ranger and assistant road inspector for the county, were yesterday called upon in the Supreme Court to defend a .£2OOO libel action in which Dick was the plaintiff. Following is a list of the defendants' names:—James Judge, Eobert Hooper, William Gorrio. Henry Benge, AVillinm ■ Eobinson, Alexander Ernest Palmer, James Maher, James Whiteman, Albert George Whiteman, Francis Whiteman, Alfred Eobert Edwards, John Bradbury, Tom Samuel Burrell. John Qorrie. The names of two other persons originally set down as defendants were struck out, the persons in question not having been served with the writ. All of tho defendants but Eobinson, it wa3 agreed by counsel,' were ratepayers of tho 'county, while Eobinson was an employee of the council. Mr, Justice' Edwards presided, and twelve jurymen Were empanelled to hear the evidence. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. M. Myers and M. F. Luckie represented the defendants.' The statement complained of was: "That during the recent election, during the hours in which he was supposed .to be engaged, upon the council's 'work, Dick '.was actively employed uTcnnvassing for the Eed Fed und disloyal organisations' candidates- for the Otaki and Hutt electorates." Plaintiff alleged that by this statement he had been injured in his character and reputation, his tenure of his present office had been imperilled, and his chance of promotion undor ■ tho County Council prejudiced. The defendants claimed in their statement of defence that the letter in question was a privileged communication sent on a privileged occasion, and that it was written and published without malice, in the honest and reasonable beliof that the statements contained in it were true. They submitted that os ratepayers they had "ah interest and a duty to see that the duties of the plaintiff as an officer of the council were being properjv and satisfactorily performed." The petition or letter, „they alleged, was forwarded or published to the council undor a sense of duty on their part. Plaintiff's Case Op"entd, "We contend in this case," said Mr. Wilford in opening, "that to call a man a Eed Fed and a disloyal person is the wickedest libel or slander that it is possible for one man in New Zealand to publish against another. There l is nothing that loyal men . . .will stamp on sooner than the aspersion of EedFedism and disloyalty cast on a young New Zcalander who has nothing against his character." Counsel told the jury that all the defendants but Bradburj and Palmer were related to ono another. He submitted that the. document coniwas the outcome of a deliberate conspiracy to ruin the plaintiff. The motive, he suggested, was ono of revenge_ for various occasions on which plaintiff had seized wandering stock owned by the. defendants.

Dick's Evidence. The plaintiff gavo evidence. He said he had known most of the defendants all his life—in fact, he had gone to 6chool with some of them. Witness himself served copies of the writ on the various defendants. Maher, when served with his copy, said: "You're going in for big licks, aren't you? We never got you *it, but wo gave you ad — good shaking. ' We'll get you next time." Just before the election, witness seized a cow on the /oad, and impounded it. He found, later that it was Maher's. A year or two before, he had found on the road a horso belonging to the same 'defendant, and had taken it to Maher, who said: "The council has too many d—• inspectors, and it's time they got rid of a few." After the elections, witness met Maher and Henry Gorrie. Goitie said, inter alia: "You prosecuted one of the councillors for not registering his dog. ... You had no right to prosecute anyone, either for a dog or for cattle. The council gives you too much latitude" Edwards once said to witness: "You wouldn't keep your job U hours if I had my way," Judge, when served with the writ, said that "thoir aun waß to put witness out of his job." They wanted a returned soldier in his place. The allegation that he had canvassed for Eed Fed. organisations, witness asserted, was altogether untrue. He had never voted for extremists, ,and he did not favour their views. Ho resented the charge of disloyalty. Cross-examination, Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, witness maintained that his employment was still in danger as a result of the' alleged libel. Ho had not had any trouble with William Gorrie, though, this defendant was "Sore" about a by-law prosecution of his son, Henry Gorrie. Bengo, James Whiteman, Albert George Whiteman, Francis Whiteman, Bradbury, and John Gorrie were defendants witli whom-he 'had never "had words." Counsel mentioned the names of three signatories to the petition who had Snot been sued. He asked why they had been left out. . Witness replied that the question of including or'leaving out names had beon left to his solicitor. . Mr. Myers: Were these three left out for any political reason?— Witness: No." Do you know why they were left out? —"No." Further cross-examined, witness said that a certain Peter Eobertson was a relative of his. He was not aware that Eobertson had acted as chairman of a committee which'supported the extreme Labour candidate in his district. Ho had not visited Eobertson more frequently during the election campaign than he was accustomed to do at ordinary times. He never told Allen Benge, Henry Gorrie. and Maher that they were niore to be pitied than blamed for voting for an opponent of tho Labour candidate.

County Clerk in the Box. Frederick James France, clerk to the Hutt County Council, said that the petition of the defendants was considered in open council on January 15. Tho minutes of the meeting showed that the council resolved, upon the casting vote of the chairman, merely to "receive" and leave upon the table, the petition and three letters making complaints against Dick. Thorc was no other evidence for the plaintiff. . Counsel for Defence. Nonsuit points raised by Mr. Myers ik re reserved. To the jury Mr. Myers said that the action was a "twopenny halfpenny" ono with which the Court ought not to have been troubled at all, or one at any rate in which tho plaintiff might well' have assessed the alleged damago to his reputation at something very much below It could not be suggested that Dick had suffered any actual damage. He remained, anil was likely to remain, in the service of tho council, and had even been placed quito recently in a bettor position than ho used to bo in in the matter of emolument. Either the plaintiff was endeavouring to moke money out of his reputation l , or,there was some political or other undisclosed motive behind tho action. Plaintiff was unablo to say that ho had even had any trouble with a number, at least, of tho defendants. Tims ho had taken action not only against persons in the cose of whom he could lender evidence purporting to be proof of malice, but against othew in the case of whom he could offer no such evidonce. It would be shown that there was no justification for tho suggestion that the defendants haif in anv way con-spired-to remove a publio officer. Tho .only Dvid»nco of malice was to bo found uncorroborated testimony of Dick himself.

general election he spoke to William Eobiu*on Dick's conduct nt elccl«"H time. During the campaign witness uvoral times saw Dick at Peter Eolwtplace. Dick appeared at that time to be going there oftener than usual. On election day witness 6aw Dick acting in some capacity nt the polling booth. He wroto a letter to '-he council inquiring about the matter, and in the letter he inferred also that Dick had been spending time in canvassing for a certain candidate. The candidate he had in mind was the extreme Labour candidate (Mr. M'Kenzie). He gave tho defendant Eobinson information like that which he had put in the letter. Cross-examined by Mr. Wilford, and questioned also by His Honour, witness said his (statement that Dick canvassed for a candidate was based upon "ceneral talk." *

Mr. Wilford read to the witness the terms of the charge made against Dick in the defendants' petition. Counsel inquired whether the charge as stated could have been based on what witness told the defendants. Witness replied inthe negative.

John Whiteman. the next witness for tho defence, gave an account of a conversation which _ the plaintiff had described in his evidonce. Whiteman's account was at variance with the plaintiff's in a number of particulars. Alfred Eobert Edwards denied having ever said that if he had his way the plaintiff would soon be out of his job. Witness signed tho ■ petition on '-he understanding that "George Bengo had seen it and had said it was all right." Robinson told him that Benge was the instigator of the petition.

Mr. Wilford: Did you know Dick was canvassing for Eed. Feds. ?—Witness: "No. but it was common talk in the district."

His Honour observed that it 4ms a shocking thing if people signed petitions making specific charges merely upon the authority of other persons and not of their own knowledge. _ William Eobinson said he was tho Hereon who took round the petition, Witness received from George Benge the information upon which the petition was based, and ho passed this information on to the man who actually drew up the petition. Mr. Bengo was a man held in high respect in the district, and witness thoroughly believed all that Mr. Benge said. When the petition was first prepared, and before it hnd been signed by anybody, witness submitted it to Benge. who inspected it and said_ it was correct. When he took tho petition round witness told'the persons -whom he asked to sign that George Benge said it ,was all rieht.

Cross-examined, witness admitted that he could not himself prove that the plaintiff canvassed for Eed Feds, or for anv disloyal organisation.

The case \will bo further heard -today.