CASE FOR PLAINTIFF

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10608, 5 June 1920, Page 8

CASE FOR PLAINTIFF

PUBLICATION ADMITTED. Mr Skerrett said that tho plaintiff was George von Zedlitz, at one time Professor of Languages at Victorta College, Wellington. Though of German parentage on tho father's side, his mother was, as would be found, of Dutch, not of German, origin. Ho would call Professor von Zedlitz. and ho would "ive details as to his birthplace, parentage, education, and so on. In 1902, whilo in England, Professor von Zedlitz was appointed Professor of Languages at Victoria College, and took up the appointment in 1902. He held the position until October 11th, 1915, a period of somo 13 years. During that time he gave tho utmost satisfaction, and enjoyed the confidence, not only of the students, but of his superiors, tho council of the college, who parted with him with expressions of regret and thanks, and with marker expresions of confidence in the loyal manner in which ho had throughout conducted his duties at the college. Ho severed his connection with tho college in ronsequenco of the passing of an Act of Parliament, tho Enemy Alien

Teachers' Act, of 1915, and on July 29th, 1919, there appeared in the "New Zealand Times" tho letter which was the subject of complaint. Counsel then put in the letter. Sir John Findlay admitted the publication of the letter. "THE SUPREME LAW."

Mr Skerrett, reading the letter, said that he wanted the jury to bear in mind that it contained a very important misstatement. If they did that, he contended, they would have very little difficulty in dealing with the case. The safety of the Commonwealth was the supremo law; and it wa3 undoubtedly the right of the Commonwealth to intern for the safety of tho Commonwealth any person of alien enemy origin, nommal or real. That was admitted by him, and had never been denied by Professor von Zedlitz. It was true that in such ■ oases innocent women and children suffer; but that was not what the plaintiff complained of. They did not toniplain of any person writing to any oaper urging that no German should he allowed free, but for the safety of the public should be interned. They complained of tho definite false statement that charged that Professor vcwi Zedlitz had been arrested for a breach of the War Regulations and that ho had substantially committed a breach of those regulations. He wanted to point out what that moant. To be interned as a German was one tiling, for no man could help his nationality or his birthplace. It was not given to us by Providence to pick' our fathers or mothers;, nor could we pick the country to which we owed allegiance because of the place of our birth. Internment on account of the accident of nationality or allegiance was therefore no disgraco to anyone. They complained, however, that the letter made a positively false statement against the plaintiff, and when thiey wrote to the paper asking them to withdraw and apologise, they declined to do so on lines which made the matter worse. A libel in, law was any statement about a man which was calculated to brine; him into contempt, hatred, or ridicule with hia fellow-men or to convey an imputation on him disparaging to his trade, business, profession, or occupation. He wished to point out that this allegation against mis man had been made alter peace, and long after peace' It was an allegation that he abused tho generous hospitality accorded him. having regard to the fact that he was a German subject. Bulfc tthait hospitality he Jhad never abused by word or deed; or, it would be shown, oven in thought. Prior to the war it would not 'have been ]ibel to say that he was a German, but after tho war, in consequence of the inhuman methods bv which, the Germans had conducted .tho war—in consequence of their gross inhumanity and constant breaches of the laws of war, of nations and of humanity—it becam.e a term of opprobrium; and it had been held in more than one case in New Zealand after tho war that it was libellous to call a man a Gorman. He maintained that thero was no justification for tho libel because it was without defence, and that the only duty of the jury would be to assess the damages. His learned friends did not plead that the statements complained of were true; nor that there was any justification for them in 1919. after the war waa over and when the plaintiff had quitted the college and was earning his living in this city as a, teacher of languages. Calumny possessed in an uncommon degree the power of adhesion. It grew and grew, and the longer it remained tihe harder it became, until it soon engrossed' with its libellous infection tho whole moral character of the victim. Professor von Zedlitz had come to court in defence of his moral character. PREJUDICE DEPRECATED. Thero must b© in all their minds o 6trong prejudice affainst the Germans and against everything tihat was German. That was only natural, because of tho history of the past few years, with which we wero all familiar. The plaintiff —a German, nominally though he. were—even thourfi he,were a real German —was entitled to come to the courts of justice of this land and ask for protection and redress. "The jury were tho judges, tho real judges, in this matter, and of every matter afI'feotinc tho general morals and the general welfare of the community, iho charter of every Briton, extorted from King John at Runnymede—the Magna Charta. —made the King declare that he would neither sell, delay, nor deny justice to any man. Hie jury were the guardians of that charter, and he asked thorn, in that capacity, to give the plaintiff fair play. . Mr Skerrott then gave details as to the birthplace, parentage, and education of Professor von Zedlitz, stated at length by the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief reported boow. Summarising the position, Mr Skerrett said that from the age of eight until lie was 31 years of ago, tho plainttiff was never in Germany, except for one year; and since, he was 31 years of ago he had lived in New Zealand under our eyes, and was well known in the city. During all that period ho would tell them that ho had no communication with, his relatives in Germany. That wasi the whole history of Professor von Zcdhtz, eo tar as related to the' case.

RELATIONS "WITH VICTORIA COLLEGE. He wanted to tell the jury very briefly, ho added, what happened in regard to the Victoria Coflogo. At the outbreak of tho war, Professor von Zedlitz had been twelve years at the college, and his relations with the j students and tho council wore of the very best. When Groat Britain declared war against Germany, on August 4tli 19H, tho plaintiff proffered hi, rcsgiiation to the Council of the University. The offer was not acceptl cd and nothing was done m connecition with the matter, except by way lof political agitation, and negotiations 'between tho council .and the Governmnnfc until the session of 1915, wJien nlteroretation of the Act, and in. his "Sent that that Act was antondId to entitle Victoria College to resume relations with. Professor von Stz and reappoint, him. Professor von Zedlitz was never arrested for Inv hrtach of the War Regulations nor had he ever, committed any breach of any War Regulations or of any other Act of Now Zealand law When the. letter complained of. wa« brought under the plaintiff notice, hw .solicitors wrote to tho defendants the letter quoted above. This, Mr Skerrett claimed, was a perfectly fair letter, inviting; the defendant, company .to make inquiries, proffering every information that tho professor could supply- and intimating their preparedness 'to aocept a recantation of statements which they should find upon inquiry to be unfounded. R3SPLY CHARACTERISED AS OFFENSIVE. Tho reply was a long letter (quoted above) of two and a-half type-written pages. He asked them to read it to

say that it was more—that it -was at least to Profc*sor von Zedlitz as the letter ho complained of. Defendant admitted that th© charge that plaintiff was arrested for a breach of the War Regulations was untrue, hut was not prepared to apologise for it, and made aspersions against the professor which deprived it of any value whatever. "BOIIN IN GERMANY AND A . GERMAN SUBJECT."

Professor von Zedlitz, added Mr Skerrett, was a non-naturalised German, was horn in Germany, and was a Gorman subject, hut "they would observe that he never served a period of military service at any time, and that all his interests were with the country of his adoption; that was England. When negotiating for the professorship at Victoria College ho offered to become naturalised, but the High Commissioner said it was not necessary. The only suggestion that he should become naturalised was when it was suggested that he should become a member of a local body or vote for members of Parliament. But no doubt if was more satisfactory for him not to be troubled with these political matters. He (Mr Skerrett) did hot know what value the jury attached to letters of naturalisation. Did they change a man's sentiments or the skin of a lion?

THE QUESTION OF DAMAGES. As to damages, in the writ the solicitors had followed the English practice in claiming damages generally. In England the ampunt claimed was never mentioned to the jury. The writ in that form was very properly set aside by Mr Justice Hosking, who held that under New Zealand rules the damages claimed for should be stated, and therefore damages of £IOOO were claimed. It was felt that, because of the prejudice that would surround the matter, a. jury of four was not sufficient, and therefore they claimed such an amount as would require a jury of twelve. But the question of damages rested entirely with the jury. They could give contemptible damages if - they liked—a farthing or a shilling, which l was en insult to the plaintiff, and intended to be so. Or they could give a reasonable sum, as they thought proper, to mark their sense of the libel, and, it was submitted, of the refusal to properly withdraw the statement. It was, he stated, open to the defendant company, even after the writ, to publish a withdrawal and apology for the false statement complained of. The only false statement complained pf was that the plaintiff was arrested for a breach of the War Regulations.. "AS A BUSINESS MATTER?" "It may'be," said counsel, "that the 'New Zealand Times' as a business matter desired' to defend this action, right or wrong. It may be they thought that it will pay tliem by way of increased circulation to defend these proceedings and to take their chance of whatever damages the jury may award. It may be—it may well be—tliat they trust that prejudice, the prejudice- which generally prevails, may close your eyes to the real merits, the real significance of tjie action. Gentlemen, I have no fear of it. My experience is that prejudice with an honourable man is_ only effective when' it is ■unconscious. But directly prejudice is exposed —directly he is put on his guard against it—there is no fear that he will fail to do justice and follow the dictates of his heart and of justice."