ALLEGED LIBEL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 25 November 1924, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL.

HOWARD ELLIOTT v. WORKER. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, Nov. 25. Th case Howard Elliott v. the New Zealand Worker, a claim for £IOO damages for alleged libel, was commenced before Mr Page, S.M., to-day. The libel was alleged to be contained in the report of a speech by Mr Holland, M.P... published in the Worker. The article was headed “Mr Howard Elliott’s attack on the King,” and contained, inter alia, the following alleged false and defamatory statements concerning plaintiff: (a) Mr Howard Elliott, a man who did not hesitate to attack the King on hie' Throne in language which, if used; by the New Zealand Worker or the Grey River Argus, would land the editor in the dock; (b) Mr Howard Elliott is the very last man who is entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man; (c) disloyalists and seditioniste of the Howard Elliott type; (d) over and over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached by_ the laws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government had cared to move; (e) his (meaning the plaintiff’s) attack on the King is the culminating point of his seditionary wildness; (f) I have presented Mr Howard Elliott as a seditionary and disloyal. Mr Watson, in his opening address for the plaintiff, said ’that Elliott’s character as a private citizen was immune from attack. Any libel impugning his fitness was a serious matter. If the charges .of dishonesty, disloyalty and sedition were shown to be founded the plaintiff was unfit to hold a public position. If they were false then the defendants shoifld he mulcted in damages. The case was taken to vindicate Elliott’s character. The paper was widely circulated, and exercised no doubt a wide influence on its readers. The.article purported; to be a report, but he submitted it was a contributed article supplied by Mr Holland from his notes after the meeting. It was thus an edited article. An effective attack, made in the House by Holland, was that Elliott was disloyal and should be in the (lock on account of disloyalty. Elliott asked Holland to repeat the charge where he would not he protected by Parliamentary privilege. The article in the Worker was apparently Holland’s reply. There could be only one interpretation of the statements complained of. The plaintiff claimed that it was a direct charge of sedition, coupled with a sinister insinuation that there was some power protecting Elliott from prosecution. The charges might be construed as a deliberate attempt to ruin the reputation of the .plaintiff and destroy his livelihood. The whole of the statements of the defendants were allegations of fact, and not comment or criticism. Mi* Myers contended that the socalled article was a" report of Mr Holland’s speech. He said that the character of the man who took up the attitude of plaintiff, holding the position he did and seeking to guide the community, was a matter of grave public interest. Such.a man must he open to receive attacks. Mr Elliott had never hesitated in his attacks against the Roman Catholic Church and in associating the Political Labour Party in those attacks. Mr Watson, for plaintiff, submitted that there was no- charge as to raising the sectarian issue. The court was not concerned with that, and the matter was quite irrelevant. Mr Myers said that plaintiff had not hesitated in most virulent and violent attacks on the Catholic Church to couple the Labour Party with the church and to single out Mr Holland in the matter. He also referred to two articles in the New Zealand Sentinel. Mr Elliott published an article on “The King’s visit to the Vatican— A blunder and discourtesy,” which he contended contained offensive remarks concerning the King. In another issue of _ the Sentinel under the title “The King’s visit to the Vatican” appeared a further article stated to be a letter from Baron Porcelli to Mr Elliott. If anything appeared in the Sentinel the natural assumption was that it was published with the sanction of Mr Elliott. These articles were the groundwork of Mr Holland’s speech. Mr Holland said that- the person who wrote or allowed to. be published such letters was seditious and disloyal. Who. on reading such a letter, said Mr Myers', could come to any other conclusion? He submitted that every word Mr Holland had used was justified as- fair comment. Referring to the allegation of dishonesty, Mr Myers ' referred to a well-known case in Auckland in which Mr Elliott had been described by the magistrate as having vilely slandered a dead woman. “If a mail,” said Mr Myers, “I care not who ho is, vilely slanders a dead woiiian as Mr Howard Elliott did under the circumstances under which he did it, he is the very last man in the world entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man.” Mr Myers then referred to the report of Mir Bishop. S.M., to the effect that plaintiff had fabricated letters intended to trap postal officers. These lctt-ert were the vilest possible letters any man could write. “Has a, man who would do things like that a character and reputation to lose. I submit that it is fair comment to make of such a. man that he is the last- person entitled to impugn the honesty of anybody else.” (Proceeding.)