Libel Action.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, Issue 6, 26 June 1914, Page 2

Libel Action.

£IOOO AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF. COSTS ON HIGHEST SCALE. A libel action was heard in the Hamilton Supreme Court before Mr Justice Edwards last Friday when Stuart Dixon, president of the Taupiri Miners’ Union, claimed from fhe Federation of Labour as proprietor of TheMaoriland Worker the sum of £IOOO. The claim stated that the words used meant that Dixon was a traitor to the cause of the workers, a paid tool of the employers, and a dishonourable person to be held in hatred and contempt by the workers of New Zealand ; and that as many copies had been circulated in Huntly the plaintiff’s credit and reputation had been greatly injured. The defendant, in his statement of defence, denied that the words were meant, or intended to mean, that the plaintiff was a traitor- to the cause of Labour, or a dishonourable parson, and asserted thst they were incapable of any defamatory meaning. Mr J. R. Reed, IC.C., with Mr Newton, appeared for the plain- ; tiff, and Mr Donnelly, with Mr O’Regan, for the defence. In opening the case, Mr Reed said that the action was principally founded on the use of a , certain term. He was proeeed- , ing to refer to a previous ease, ; when Mr Donnelly submitted that Mr Reed had no right to influence the jury by what another jury had chosen to give another defendant. Mr Justice Edwards: Don’t mention the damages. : TERM OF OPPROBRIUM After some further argument Mr Reed was allowed to put in extracts from the Maoriland Worker of February 21, 1913, to explain what the federationists meant by the word in question. ' It was described in the article as a “ term of opprobrium for the outlawed,” and was connoted with various terms of reproach, Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, and other authors being also quoted. ■ Proceeding, Mr Reed quoted from ■ another issue of the same paper, the American definition of the ■ word. ) Joseph Young, the first witness, said that both the plaintiff and himself ware arbitrationists, and worked in the same mine. Everybody knew that the article referred to Dixon who ' was in Auckland when the pub- ‘ lication arrived in Huntly. Wit- ; ness took a copy with him to 1 Auckland where they were subjected to insult by hostile crowds, : the members of which used towards them the opprobrious term ! referred to. Before the publication of the article feeling in Huntly was running high, and I afterwards it became more in- , tense. Witness doubted whether her the strike was due to the , dismissal of the 14 men. In his j opinion the men struck in sympathy with the Federation of , Labour. He did not go to , Auckland with Dixon in order , to bring back men to work the , -mines. When walking up Queen Street like decant citizens the. were saluted with cries of —, 1 and —■ organiser. As the mob was not allowed to gather in large numbers they did not > complain to the police. i Albert A. Stewart, miner, sfcut--1 ed that he was vice-president ■ of the naw union, having prei viously hald the office of seoreI tary. In his opinion tin words in the article app’iel to Stuart • Dixon, president of the union. C When in Auckland after the 1 appearance of the article their ( movements were watch e 1, plaintiff, who w is track : 1 whatever he want, being folio .vel once to Wellington and twice to i Auckland. Neither he nor Dixon could go out at night, the strikers > in Huntly being very bitter • against the arbitrationists. As \ there were a good few new men in Huntly at the time in ’ question, the publication of the . article would naturally incense them against the plaintiff who ” would have no chance of getting a job in any part of the Dominion over which the Federation of Labour had control. He corroborated Young’s evidence as to the proceedings in Auckland. John J. Clout, mine official, said that as an employee paid by the Company he could not belong to the union. Dixon was employed under witness as a braceman until last week when he had been assisting witness at other work. He had been more molested after than before the publication of the article in the Maoriland Worker. No further evidence was called on either side. Mr Reed, in addressing the jury, said the whole question they had to decide was “How much?” To imply that a man was a might mean that he was working for the sake of his wife and family, but to call him a” organiser” meant that simply for the sake of lucre, he was organising —• —s. There was no attempt made, under their statutory right, to express regret and plead that their apology should be taken into consideration. Had any one struck Dixon on the head that night the Maoriland Worker would have been responsible. Futhermore, there was no saying when the damage of such a libel would cease. He asked for exemplary though not vindictive damages. Mr Donnelly held that the real character of the action was to provide an insurance fund for Dixon. There was no serious allegation against Dixon’s character. He contended that the

non-appearance of the plaintiff in the witness box was due to the fact that he could not have satisfied the jury that he had sustained any damage in reputation or money. Probably he was much better off. After his honour had summed up the jury retired about 4. p.m. THE VERDICT. DAMAGES £IOOO. Their deliberations were resumed after an interval for tea, and a, few minutes before eight they returned with a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff, the damages being assessed at the full amount, £IOOO, by a thieefourths majority. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs on the highest scale, a certificate being issued for second counsel.