NO DEFAMATION

Hokitika Guardian, 19 September 1933, Page 7

N O DEFAMATION

SUIT against premier , VERDICT FOR. DEFENDANT SYDNEY, September 10. A jury of four in the Supreme Court after a three day’s trial, returned a verdict for defendant—the P|i*emie»* of New South Wales, Mr If. S. B. Stevens—in the action brought against him for alleged defamation by Mi John Chambers Eldridge, ex-M.P., who claimed £SOOO damages, A stay of proceedings was granted, with a view to an appeal. I'he jury, which returned to Court after a retirement of zO minutes, bascu jits verdict on tho ground that the words complaned of if uttered, were not defamatory. The foreman added that the jury considered that the witnesses for the plaintiff were most unreliable.

Mr A. R. J Watts, K.C., leading council for plaintiff, asked for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and tint the words were defamatory. Mr Curtis, K.C., second counsel for the defendant, resisted the application.

tie said that the case was one of political significance, and there was a danger that a stay of proceedings would create a wrong public impression. Air Justice James; There is the statement that the plaintiff was trying to convert the electors to the blasphemous doctrines of Communism. The Jury have found that that is not defamatory. I think it is a matter for the Full Court. I will allow the application on the usual terms.

The statements upon which the (plaintiff sued were ;contained in a (broadcast address by the defendant during the last New South-Wales election, when the litigants were rival can. didates for the surburban electorate of Croydon. The statements took the form of criticism of an address given in the House of Representatives by the plaintiff, during his representation of the (electorate of Martin. In that address the plaintiff had referred to a manifesto which was issued by leaders of elnirclies in South Australia.

■ Plantiff’s speech was intended as a reply to the churches’ statement, condemning Mr Lang.and the> Lang plan. One sentence in the speech ran:— '‘Having listened to this statement we are entitled to say that ; with distress and poverty throughout this coun. try, the churches are nothing but the harlots of Mammon..” Under eroKsexamination, Mr Eldridge said that he meant that, the churches, because they ignored the poor and truckled to the rich, were prostituting religion to wealth. He said he was not ashamed of the expression in the sense in which he Used it. Evidence was given that Mi' Stevens had stated, inter" alia, that Mr Eldridge was “a man seeking to convert the electors of Croydon to the blasphemous and unthinkable doctrines iff Communism.” According to plaintiff’s counsel, th© effect of defendant’s attack was to “eliminate” plaintiff from the contest, and as it was broadcast throughout the electorate, it caused him much pain and public humiliation. On behalf of the defendant a plea, of not guilty was filed, hut no evidence was given.