LABOUR LIBEL SUIT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8350, 10 February 1913, Page 11

LABOUR LIBEL SUIT

SLACK V. FEDERATION VERDICT FOB DEFENDANTS. (“Auckland Star.”) At tho Auckland Supreme Court on Friday afternoon \V. P. Black claimed to recover from the Federation of Baboui as proprietors and Alexander wig© as publisher of the "iUaoniand VV orker £l5O as damages in respect of alleged libellous statements contained in uie same newspaper. Mr G.AI. Newton conducted tho case for W. P. Black, and the defence was conducted by oir John linalay, K.C., with wham appeared Mr i . J. o'Regan, both of Wellington. Tho alleged libel was contained in tha “Worker" of September 13th, 1913 under the headings “Black in 1910 and Black in 1912. Tne Blackest Infamy of all w Apostacy ” The article accused Black ot vilifying the federation in the year 1912 in the "Voice,” while in 1910 in tho now defunct paper the “Leader” he had defended the federation against attacks from other papers. Tho article referred to Black in other terms, and the one/ho most objected to was that in which the paper spoke of “the depths of editorial prostitution in which ho is now wallow,n?\ r P Black said he was a journalist and'business manager of the “Voice. He had only written three or tour articles in the paper, and they did not bear on the federation at all. Be had only acted as editor for the first three or four weeks, and since then had not written a single line. . . Asked if he had suffered any injury after the appearance ot the articles in the “Worker,” witness said he had been followed and called all the epithets used by the “Worker.” He had been threatened “with having his lights thrown out.” They gave him a fortnight, but the time had been extended. (Laughter.) He had been in Auckland about eleven years. He had come from Roumania. His name was W. P- Black. In Roumania it was Negraski, which meant negro. That was why ho took tho name of Black. Witness was pressed by Sir John Findlay as to whether he published what was known as “the Black Pamphlet, Witness declined to say anything about it, and remarked that if they were going into back history they might as well go into tho Parnell election. Witness admitted that a man named Carey, of Wellington, had obtained a verdict for £BO damages in respect of an article that appeared in tho “Leader.” Witness was made bankrupt by Carey, and up to tho present moment had not obtained his discharge. Witness admitted that the “Leader” had. unfortunately, contained a vast amount of defamation. Ho was nominally editor but was away a lot, and matters got in that ho objected to. He frequently complained about the language. Sir John Findlay : You were a free man, still yon retained your connection with tho paper and drew money from lfc Witness: I only got 3Cs a week out to further questions. Black said he was not editor of the “Voice of Labour," and he declined to say who Wl gii John Findlay: Is it not true that the name of W. P. Black has been identified in Auckland with a career of yilification? , Witness (excitedly): It’s a he! Sir John: That you are a paid Witness (more excitedly): It’s a lie! Sir John: That you are a professional del'amer. , 1 Witness (moat excitedly): It’s a lie! His Honor quietly told witness that he was very foolish to go in such a manner. The previous plaintiff behaved very differently. He impressed his Honor very favourably as a working-man, and was quite calm in the box. Witness; Sir John has a spite against me' on account of tho Parnell election. Sir John Findlay ridiculed the idea. He said witness was there to get money out of counsel’s clients, and it was counsel’s duty to protect those clients. Ho did not mind how much witness attacked him. _ ' Witness admitted that he had originallly supported the federation, but had his sympathies alienated by tho adoption of I.W.W. principles. Ho hod always been against anarchy. Black admitted that he was ashamed of some of the things that appeared in “The Leader.” Sir John asked heatedly why witness did not say so when he went before the Court and tried to justify the scurrilous (hings that had been said about Carey. Witness replied that he only defended the action formally. Ha could not afford to employ counsel while the counsel for the other side appeared for nothing. Witness surmised the same thing might bo happening in the present case. It had been boasted that ‘‘Findlay was coming up to paste Black.” After moro introhanges. Sir John remarked, before sitting down, “I put it to you, Mr Black, that you are the last man who should come before a British tribunal and ask for damages for defamation of character.” ■ Witness: Do be professional, Sir John, and' leave abuse alone. This was the only witness. No evidence was called for the defence. Sir John Findlay, addressing the jurysaid it was to he regretted that Black should have had the hardihood to come into Court and ask for damages. There never was a paper that descended to such depths of scurrility as the “Leader,” and Sir John hoped there never would be such a paper again. It had degraded journalism in Auckland in a way it had never been degraded before. Black, counsel contended, was the real controller and inspirer of tho “Voice of Labour,” Black was tho father of a paper like the "Leader,” Black was the father of a pamphlet of which ho was ashamed even to mention. Was such a man, counsel asked, entitled to come before a self-respecting set of jurymen and ask them to put gold in hia pockets? Mr Newton said the jury had listened to a violent denunciation of plaintiff, but, unfortunately for the other side, that denunciation did not rest on a scrap of evidence. His Honor said it appeared to him fairly clear that Black was responsible for the “Leader," but merely because a man was in 1910 editor of a scurrilous fag, it was not to say that ho should be libelled in 1912. If the jury thought that Black was not responsible for the “Voice of Labour” in 1912. then the defence set up must fail. The whole thing seemed to his Honor to resolve itself into a question of whether Black was responsible for what had appeared in the “Voice of Labour” concerning the Federation. If ho were, then tho Federation was justified in commenting on his change of front. The jury, after a retirement of about twenty minutes, returned with a verdict for the defendants, judgment being entered accordingly with costs.