THE HOWARD ELLIOTT CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2825, 18 December 1924, Page 2

THE HOWARD ELLIOTT CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF FOR £lO. Judgment for plaintiff, awarding £lO damages was given by Mr E. Page, S.M., at the Wellington S.M. Court on Tuesday in the action for libel brought by the Rev. Howard Elliott against the “New Zealand Worker,” Printing and Publishing Company and the publisher, John Glover, hearing of which attracted considerable attention recently. The plaintiff, well known as the Dominion organiser of the Protestant Political Association, claimed £IOO damages for alleged libel contained in what purported to be a report of an address by Mr 11. E. Holland, M.P., published in the “Worker,” of 30th July last. It was alleged that the article in question contained, inter alia, the following alleged false and defamatory references to the plaintiff:— “(a) . . . Mr Howard Elliott . . . . a man who did not hesitate to attask 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 the dock. “(b) . . . Mr Howard Elliott is the very last man who is entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man. “(c) Disloyalists and seditionists of'the Howard Elliott type. “(d) Over and over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached bv the laws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government had cared to move. “(e) This (meaning the plaintiff's) attack on the King is the culminating point of his seditionary wildness. “(f) J have presented Mr Howard Elliot t as seditionary and disloyal.” Prominent members of the local organisation of the Labour Party were present when* judgment was delivered by the Magistrate, as fol lows:— PLAINTIFF MUST HAVE VERDICT. , “I am of opinion that the plaintiff must have a verdict. “The action is one claiming damages against a newspaper, The New Zealand Worker, and against the publisher (hereof for libel. “The article complained of is an account in defendant’s issue of 30th July, L 024, of a speech delivered at the Empress Theatre, Wellington, on 20tli July 1024, by Mr Holland, Leader of the New Zealand Labour Parly. The speech is devoted mainly to a criticism of the actions and the published utterances of the plaintiff wlio is a Baptist minister and is the Dominion organiser and national lecturer for a political organisation known as the Protestant Political Association. “Publication of the article is admitted. “Certain passages in it are clearly defamatory. TWO GROUNDS FOR DEFENCE “Two grounds of defence are raised; the first being that the defamatory passages are fair comment on a matter of public interest and the second being that the allegations contained in the defamatory passages are in fact true, and are therefore not libellous. “With regard to the first ground, I think that the utterances of an organiser of a political association, published in the official organ of such association are matters of pub- !

lie interest and that fair comment on such utterances is protected. The matter defended as comment must, however, he comment only and not assertions of fact. The defence of fair comment is concerned with expressions of opinion as distinguished from assertions of fact. NATURE OF FAIR COMMENT.

“Some of the defamatory passages in the present article do not profess to be and are not in my view, expressions of opinion. “For example, the passage ‘Over and over again Mr Howard Elliott could have been reached by the laws of sedition and criminal defamation if the Government had eared to move,’ does not, as it is placed in the article, appear to me to be comment. It purports to he a statement of fact. “I think, therefore, that the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest cannot be maintained. “With regard to the second ground of defence, namely, the contention that the allegations complained of are in fact true, the defendants rely for proof of the truth of the allegations, on the contents of certain articles and pamphlets published by or with the concurrence of the plaintiff and on certain other matters elicited from the plaintiff in cross-examination or proved at the hearing relating to the plaintiff’s past actions. “BITTER INTOLERANT ATTACKS.”

“Passages in these articles and pamphlets are bitter, intolerant sectarian attacks on the adherents of another church. They are calculated to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects, and some of them are in my opinion, seditious within the meaning of section 118 of the Crimes Act, 1908. “The law with reference to the defence of justification requires, however, that in order to succeed the defendant must prove the truth of all the allegations complained of. DEFENCE FALLS SOMETHING SHORT. “After a careful consideration I am of opinion that the evidence for the defence falls something short of this, and that therefore the second defence has not been stablished. “Looking at the whole of tbe circumstances, I propose to award the plaintiff the sum of £lO by way of damages, with costs on that amount.” : V ... f Judgment was entered for plaintiff for that, with costs £4 18/-. At the hearing Mr G. G. Watson appeared for the plaintiff, Mr M. Myers, K.C., for defendant, “New Zealand Worker,” and Mr H. F. O'Leary for defendant Glover.