SAMOAN LIBEL ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 20 April 1929, Page 6

SAMOAN LIBEL ACTION

AX APPEAL HEARD

WELLINGTON, April 18

An echo of the trouble in Samoa last year was heard in the Supreme Court to-day, when an appeal from the decision of Chief Justice Woodward, of the High Court of Samoa, came before Mr Jut ice Ostler. The appeal was the outcome of a libel action brought by Alfred M’Cnrthy, of Apia, a Judge of the High Court of Samoa, Crown Solicitor and Commissioner of Police and Prisons, against the “Samoa Guardian” newspaper and William Tarr, editor.

In the Samoan High Court M’Cnrthy was awarded £IOO damages for libel arising out of the publication oi two articles in the “Guardian” in March, 1928. On March Bth. M’Carthy as acting. Commissioner of Police and Prisons, ordered the arrest of High Chief Tamasese for attending a meeting of the Man in a disturbed area, tnis being prohibited by ordinance. The arrest, however, could not be effected, and the following day M’Carthy interviewed Tamasese.

Several days later an account of the interview was published in the “Guardian’’ with headings “Spectacular Police Stunt,” “Tamasese’s Arrest,” “Declared to Ih' a Mistake.” It was stated that M’Cartliy informed Tamasese that the attempted arrest was a mistake. He had expressed regret at the happening, and said that it arose over a misunderstanding.

A leading article was also publkh ed on the matter with the heading “ Administration at Fault.” Both articles, M’Carthy contended in the Samoan Court, contained words winch wore false and malicious, and vhuh were calculated to injure and dispar age him in his capacity as Commissioner of Police.

The defence was that Hie report of the interview did not purport to be a verbatim account of what happened, but was. nevertheless, a fair and true account. It was denied that Hie articles imputed the disparaging meanings ascribed to them by M’Carthy. The Chief Justice field that the report of the interview was not true or fair, and this applied equally to the words complained of in the lead’ng article. He also held that the j’".' would conclude from the report that the meaning of the news article to an ordinary reader would lie that McCarthy, through his subordinates, ad mitted that a mistake had been made. The report was an imputation that M’Carthy was lacking in the qualities requisite for the office of Commissioner of police, or, indeed for any hign office of authority over the people of tbe territory. His Honor held, however thru there was no evidence of mal-ce. It was from this docismn that tinappeal was made. The Court reserved its decision.