WHO WAS INSULTED?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 127, 21 January 1932, Page 5

WHO WAS INSULTED?

(Press Assri.-

NEW GUA^D CASE colonel campbell's, counsel meNtic>ns Kir. lanh's farm bull RIGHT OF FREfe SBEECH

-By Telegraph— Copyrlght.)

Rec. Jan. 20, 7.45 p.ih. . SYDNEY, Wednesday. ■ tlblonei Eric Cahipbell, the leader fb tfie New Giiard, \vas ak^in befor'e ttie Court tb-day for usiiig insultirig words. A ldrge crowd fought for adinissioii, biit only a small perceritkge suceeeded. - Mr. Lamb, H.C., attoriiey for C61onel Campbell, asked for a fiirther adjournlhents deelaring that there haci beeii ihsufficient tinie. tb jirepafe a s def ence wo.rthy of sjich ari o'ccasion'. II, e addeil that tiie "Vital p.ririciple ,invoived in tiie right of free speech was the right of every citizen to criticise ari act of a public iriari. > ."We are erititled to sky tH'at the Premiel" of this State ; (Mr. J. T: Larig) Ms disgraee'd his a pbsitibn,'' Mr Lamb said. "Iri every way he has

lower ed jts dignity and injured its credit. He has wor k'ed ,tb b'ririg aboUt a .Coiriiniiriist State, and above all; has defaulted. Everybody idiows this but you. As Magistrate, y'ou do riot know it." ■ The Magistrate, Mr. Lai'dlaw: "Assuming that your st'ateinents are trub; would you be erititled tb give eviderice to substantiat'e riiatters of that lcirid." , Insuit.to Buil? Counsei: "Most decidedly I would haye that right. A public man has defaulted and hojds his. ppsition by false pfetences. That being his character, we have the right to criticise

him as .nuttiherless others are dping. Evefi Mr. Lyons, the Prime Minister, has described Mr. Lang as an incubus. We have likened him to his own f armyard bull. It may be an insult to the bull, but I do not think it is an insult to Mr. Lang." Counsei pointed out that he also intended to submit that the summons was had, because it did not specifically state whd had been insulted. He contended that a person insulted must he present at the time the words coiriplhined of were iised. Mr. Laidlaw replied that it did not seem necessary to prove to him that the remarks were insulting. Mr. Lamb argue d that if Mr. Lang had been insulted,. theri let him come fotward so that. he could be fcrossexamined. No offence had been committed, he said, unless someone had been insulted. Who was that someone. Mr. Lanib continued to argue that every word uttered of Mr. Lang was justified. Irideed far worse Was being said about him by others, and he, Counsei, desired to bring evidenced to this effect. The Magistrate refused the application for an adjournment. Reason Not Disclosed . Mr. Sheahan, who appeared for the prosecution, said the police took action for good reason, which he was not disclosing. He added tbat there was such.a thing as prevtion of disqrder, when arrogant persoris set themselves up in a position tb which they had no right or title. The hearing of evidence theri. compienced. A police shortband wfiier, Sergeapt Alexander Lendrum, detailed .Colonei Campbell's speech at a Lane Cove picture theatre on January 11, in which many references were made to Mr. Lang. Witness described the utterances as insulting. . During cross examination, Sergeant Lendrum said .he had not attemptecT to verify Colone.1 Campbell's statement that the Premier was a scoundrel. He was not concerned whether Mr. Lang was a def aulter or had broken his pledges and appointed scoundrels and criminals to the public service. . . , ■ - The Magistrate suggested that Mr. Lamb sliould be mor'e careful regardth'e words he used about tbe Premier of the State. ........ Mr. Lamb: "I shall be very careful, if I carinot prove my words. I submit that.a scoundrel is a very mild Word iri this case, . Mr. Sheaham iriterposed tbat these ; cowardly attacks . on the Premier •should ho.t be tolerated in a feritlsh \ Court of Law. ] After other similar exchanges, the i hearing w$9, adjpurhed. - ■ ' - - - 1