HOWARD ELLIOTT

Hokitika Guardian, 25 November 1924, Page 3

HOWARD ELLIOTT

CLAIM FOR LIBEL. (nr TEL EG lIAI'II— rER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Nov. 25. Tbe ease, Rev Howard Elliott versus New Zealand Maoriland Worker,” a ■•claim for OHIO damages for alleged libel, was commenced before Mr Page M., to-day. Tbe libel was alleged to be contained in a 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.”

Il contained, inter alia, the following alleged false and defamatory stale ments concerning the plaintiff:—“Mr Howard Elliott is a man who did not hesitate to attack the King and his throne in language which, if used by the "New Zealand Worker” or the “ drey River Argus,” would land the editor in the dock. Mr Howard Elliott is tbe very last man who is entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man. Over ami over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached by the laws of sedition and criminal defamation, if tbe Government bad cared to move. His '.meaning the plaintiff) attack on the King is the culminating point of bis seditionary wildness, and have presented Mr Howard Elliott as seditionary and disloyal.” Mr Watson, in bis opening address for the plaintiff, said Elliott's charac-

ter as a private citizen was immune from attack. Any libel impugning bis fitness was a serious matter. If charges of dishonesty. disloyalty and sedition were shown to be founded, the plaiulilf was unfit to bold a public position. If they were false, then the defendants should be mulcted in damages. The ease was taken to vindicate Elliott’s character. The paper was widely circulated and exercised no doubt a wide influence oil its readers. The article purported to be a report but be submitted it was a contributed article, supplied by Mr Holland I ruin his notes after the meeting. It was thus an edited article. In elfeel I lie attack made in the House by Mr Hol-

land was that Elliott was disloyal and should be in the dock oil account ul di-loyally. Elliott asked Holland In repeal the (barge where be would not be protected by Parliamentary privilege. The article in the " Worker.” was apparently Holland's reply. I here could hi- only one interpretation ol I lie statements complained 01. Plaintill claimed it was a direct charge ol sedition, coupled with sinister insinuations that there was some power protecting Elliott from prosecution. The charges might be construed as a reliable attempt to ruin the reputation <d plaintiff, and to destroy his livelihood. The whole of the statements of defendant were allegations of fact and not com-

ment or criticism. Mv Myers contended that the so-call-

.(I at tide was a rcpoit ol Mr Holland s

speech. He said the character of a man who took up the attitude ol the plaintill', holding the position he did and

seeking to guide the i (immunity, was a matter of grave public interest. Such a man must be open to receive attacks. Elliott had never hesitated, in bis attacks against the Reman Catholic ( lin I‘cli . in associating the political

Labour Party in those attacks. Mr Ways'll), for tbe plaintill'. i uniniUed that there mis no chaise as to tbe raising of the sectarian issue. The Court was not cnnterucd villi that, and the matter was quite irrcvetaul. Mr Myers said that t lai nt ill' bad not hesitated in his most virulent anil violent attacks on the Catholic (Tiuivb to couple the Labour party with the Church and to single out Mr Holland ill the matter. Mr Myers also relerred to two articles io the New /calami •‘Sentinel" in which Mr Elliott published an article oil ** I In l King's visit to the Vatican. A Blunder and a Disi oiirtesy.” which lie i oiiteiiileil icnlained olfensive icmaiks (unreining the Kino, In i i’-r i "■■ rH- “Sentinel" iiudcr title "I " I la* King i. \ c.il to lie ■fal iron." a red a furl her ailiric which was ■ : tel to be a Idler from Baron Poveelli to Mr KHnitt. II aiiv-

thing appeared in tbe "Sentinel" the necessary assumption was that it was published under the sanction of Mr Elliott TTie.se articles were tbe ground work of Mr Holland's speech. Mr Holland said the person who wrote, or allowed to be published, .-.nidi letters was seditious and disloyal. \\ I'.o. reading

uch a letter, said Mr Myers, could ome to any other ((inclusion. He siibuitted that every word that Mr llolind had used was justified as fair corn-u-lit.

Referring to the allegations ol disnnesty, Mr Myers referred In the I'ell-nowu case in Auckland in which ’Jliott. had been described by the Alugstrate as having vilely slandered a lead woman.

“If a man.” said Air Myers, “cares not how he vilely slandered a dead woman, as Howard Elliott did. under the circumstances under which he did. lie is the very last man in the world entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man.”

Mr Alvers then referred to the report of Mr Bishop. S.M.. to tin* eflect that the plaintiff had fabricated letters intended to trap postal officials. These letters were the vilest possible letters any man could possibly write. “ Has a man.” asked Air Af.vers, who would say tilings like that a cliniacter and a reputation to lose. T submit that it is fair comment to make of such a man that he is the last person entitled to impugn the honesty ol anybody else.”

START THIS SEASON—PRESERVE EGGSA'ou can have cheap eggs all the vear round if yon start and preserve them now with Norton s l'remiei Lgg Preservative. Proof of the effectiveness of Norton's is found in the fact that 20.000.000 eggs were preserved with this splendid preservative last year. Ask for Norton’s, sold at Is 3d tin, by AY. l’erry and Co.—Advt.