LIBEL ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 9 July 1926, Page 1

LIBEL ACTION

By TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT. AUCKLAND, July 8. fn the libel case, Henry Hastings Seabrook, one of the defendants, gave evidence. He said tliat he had been in Auckland 67 years. He was a resident and an elector of Roskill electorate. Witness stated lie was President of the Roskill Group of the P.P.A. During the war lie was on tlie side of the Empire. He took great interest in Irish historical affairs. Witness said that in his opinion, they were all a lot of rebels'in Ireland. Sir John Findlay—Oh ! Witness then qualified his remark by saying that a groat number were. Witness said be had never attacked Mr Hall-Skelton. He strongly denied that ho had ever accused the plaintiff of killing his children or thrashing his wife. It never went through his mind and it was deliberately an untrue statement. He did not know anything about it until yesterday. He was well known in tlie Roskill district. His Honour: You need not press that point! Mr Findlay: I will instruct the

jury that the evidence on those lines is not to he taken note of. Witness said he lind nothing to do with the publication of the circular complained of. His nssociaton circulated the matter, but he (witness) had nothing to do with tlie circular that bore his name. It was prepared by members of his group. Ho signed it. He signed as President. Witness stated that about 1000 of the circulars were printed, and they were no doubt, distributed about the district. In the 1922 election, the P.P.A. had issued twft circulars. •Sir John Findlay—Do you tell the jury that you bore no animosity towards (Mr Hall-Skelton. Witness—None whatever! Sir John Findlay then quoted a paragraph in one of the circulars in which the plaintiff (Mr Hall-Skelton) was alleged to be supported by a Roman Catholic vote, which was out to get anything it could. Witness said that he thought it alluded to the Self "Determination for

Ireland Longue. Sir John Findlay—You mention representation ? Witness—l understood it to be a. branch of the main party. Sir John—You sent that circular out? Witness—No, m.v Executive did. Sir John —But you circulated a great many of them? Witness—l always take an interest in the things that I am concerned with and I don’t dispute that I circulated some of them? Sir John Findlay—Did you say: “ Was a disloyalist? ”

Witness—That is a lie! What I did j say is that I objected to Skelton associating: with rebels and disloyalists! Sir John Findlay—Will you tell the jury that, hv those circulars, you did not intend to harm Skelton? Witness—l only wanted the electors to know the man who was associating with rebels. Sir John —What you wanted to imply was that Skelton was an associate of murderers? Witness—He was associated with rebels, who wanted to get separation from England. I have been an antiTToir.c lluler, and I am .against disintegration of the British Empire. Sir John Findlay—Don’t make a speech.! Do you deny that you meant Skelton was disloyal? Witness—! did not. ' Si,- John—Why did you keep that, circular back until two or three days before the election? Witness—lt was circulated more than a week before the election, and there was no object in keeping it hack. Sir John— You don’t know that you broke the law? Witness —I don’t know that I have. Sir John— You were convicted and— . ~ His Honour—There is an appeal. Sir John Findlay—And that is hardly a matter that can he dealt with. VERDICT FOR. DEFENCE. AUCKLAND, July 8. The jury returned a verdict, after an hour’s retirement, that there was no libel in either cause of action. One of the jurymen, however, asked that a note he made that, though there was no libel, the methods adopted by the defendant were to be depreca-ted. Costs were allowed against the plaintiff Ur Hnll-Skelton.