LIBEL ACTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2816, 27 November 1924, Page 3

LIBEL ACTION.

HOWARD ELLIOTT V. N. Z. WORKER. MAGISTRATE RESERVES HIS DECISION. £5 Wellington, November 25. The ease, Howard Elliott versus the “N.Z. Worker,” a claim for £IOO damages for alleged libel was commenced before Mi' Page, S.M., today. The 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” and contained inter alia, the following false and defamatory statements concerning plaintiff.— (a) “Mr-Howard Elliott, a man who Rid not hesitate to attack the King- on his throne, in language which, if used by the ‘New Zealand Worker,’ or the ‘Grey River Argus,’ would land the editor in dock.” (b) “Mr Howard Elliott is the very last man who is entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man.” i (c) “Disloyalists and seditionists 1 of the Howard Elliott type.” ! (d) “Over and over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached by the laws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government had. cared to move.” (e) “His (meaning the plaintiff’s) attack on the King is the cuminating point of his seditionary wildness.” (f) “I have presented Mr Howard Elliott as seditionary and disloyal.” Mr Watson, in his opening address for the plaintiff, said that Mr Elliott’s character as a private citizen was immune from attack and any libel impugning his fitness was a serious matter. If the charges of dishonesty, disloyalty and sedition were shown to be founded, the plaintiff was unfit to hold a public position; if they were false, then the defendants should be mulcted in damages. The ease had been taken to vindicate Mr Elliott’s character. The article purported to be a report but he submitted that it was a contributed article supplied by Mr Holland from his notes after the meeting. It was thus an editorial article and effective. An attack had . been made in the House by Mr Holland that Mr Elliott was disloyal and should be in the dock on account of disloyalty. Mr Elliott asked Mr Holland to repeat the charge where he would not be protected by Parliamentary privilege, and the article in the “Worker” was apparently Mr Holland’s reply. There could be only one interpretation of the statenients complained , of. Plaintiff’s claim was that it was a ; direct charge of sedition, coupled with the sinister insinuation that there was some power protecting Mi- Elliott from prosecution. . The - charges might be construed as a deliberate attempt to ruin'the reputation of the plaintiff and destroy his livelihood. The whole of the statements of the defendants were allegations of fact and not comment or criticism. *

For the-defence, Mi' Myers stated that the character of the man who took up the attitude of plaintiff, who sought to guide the people in their thoughts, was a matter of grave public interest. Such a man was open to receive attacks on his character and never had Elliott in connection with his propaganda throughout New Zealand, hesitated in his attacks against the Roman Catholic Church, to associate the Labour Party with it. On July 14, Mr Elliott wrote a letter to a Wellington newspaper, challenging Mr Holland to repeat statements made in the House, up on the public platform. That challenge was aecepted and counsel quoted "an article in the “Sentinel,” stated ! to ha ye been written by Elliott himself, entitled “The King’s 'Visit to the Vatican —A Blunder and a Discourtesy.” which contained offensive remarks regarding the King and in the second issue another article appeared purporting to be a letter from Baron Porcelli, Mr .My--1 ers said Mr Elliott wrote the letter published in 1923 and did publish ' the other letter referred to,' and if those letters did not breathe disloyalty and : sedition, he did not know what those terms mean. The speech of Mr Holland was made at invitation of plaintiff, Elliott, . who then charged him with dishonesty. The speech was made in consequence of plaintiff Elliott’s conduct in connection with the Clements incident, when he vilely slandered a dead woHltlll* i • - r*' ■ * “I say deliberately. Thai! a man who does suchthinj: is| the last man to impugn ‘ ih'e :,! i l oii(esty ; .of another person and a'man who" fabricates letters for* the purpose of his sectarian campaign, is.no tv‘entitled

to cast reflections upon the honesty another man. The letters- which % Jfcvßishop, S.M., hadsreported he had sent through the Post Office for the purpose o£\ entrapping postal officials were the yilest things that had ever been written by a minister - of religion, or any other man.” Evidence for the defence was given by Mr Holland, and Mr Watson made application that Mr Holland be joined in the action as one of the defendants but the application was refused. ;. After counsel for the plaintiff had addressed the Court, the Magistrate reserved his decision.