LIBELLOUS WORDS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXX, Issue 11123, 5 February 1930, Page 5

LIBELLOUS WORDS

COMMENT IN COMMUNIST

JOURNAL

.MINERS’ UNION OFFICIAL AWARDED £6O iv rc.Bß Association.) GR EY MOUTH, Feb . 4. The Magistrate, Mr Meldrum, today decided in plaintiff’s favor a claim for £6o’ damages for libel made by a Blackball miner, William Bahierstone (former secretary of the Blackball Miners’ Union, and of the West Coast Miners’ Council) against A. F. Marshall, of A. F. Alarsha.ll, as printer, publisher, and proprietor of “Tho Rod Worker”:, the newspaper of tho Communist Tarty, a journal published at Wellington. The statement of claim, inter alia, st t out that the defendant published the following words concerning the plaintiff: “At the negotiations for a now agreement for the A VestCoast minors the owners pressed their attack still further. Although pledged to demand.a wages increase, the leaders led hy Air Baklerstone sold out to the owners. Not only did they forget the demanded increase, but they agreed to the inclusion of the infamous clause 21 fought against hy isolated mines, and the fight still going on, the National Union has made no attempt to use tho fig lit ing strength of the whole organisation to combat this clause. Encouraged by their successes the owners then attacked the militants at Blackball, using Air Balderstone as a foil. Half tho men employed were sacked, and speeding up has taken place. All this, with one or two disputes in the North Island, has led to the Shag Point lock-out.” Tlie Alagistrate said: “Aly own opinion is that the words aro capable of only ono interpretation—they suggest there had been a breach of trust, a,nd a dishonorable aei '■

been done, and the representatives of the men betrayed their trust for some benefit, not necessarily an inimc4iate one. I certainly think the words are libellous, and plaintiff is entitled to damages.” The plaintiff claimed £6O. Such,sum was named as a reasonable amount to cover onf\ expenses plaintiff would he put to and the magistrate considered it a modest sum. Plaintiff was entitled to the full amount claimed, £6O. with solicitor’s fee £4 3s, witness’ expenses 19s 9d, and Court costs £2 13s Judgment was entered accordingly.