Claim for Libel

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 85, 1 July 1927, Page 13

Claim for Libel

Action Brought Against THE SUN Allegations By Mr. Morton Aldis

THAT the defendant company falsely and maliciously published a statement by which the plaintiff had been greatly injured and prejudiced in credit and reputation as a secretary, and also that he had been brought into public scandal, hatred and contempt were the allegations upon which an action for libel was brought against THE SUN Newspaper Coy., Ltd., (Mr. Northcroft) by Mr. Morton Aldis, solicitor and secretary, of Devonport (Mr. Hogben) before His Honour, Mr. Justice Reed, this morning. The claim was for £3OO damages and costs.

OET out ia the claim as a basis of the action was the following paragraph : “An ex-secretary of the Jubilee Institute of the Blind, Mr. Mor.on Antis, attacked the methods of Mr. C. Mackenzie, the present director, at a meeting in the Newmarket Town Hall last evening. He also made an allegation of faulty ad’ unistration. Replying to these allegations the trustees say the resignation of Mr. Aldis was accepted with relief, and that they regard his allegations as the undignified talk of a man who has failed in his position.” For the defendant company, Mr. Northcroft said that there would be no doubt at all that the subject of the case was a matter of public interest. He would admn mat the plaintiff was the person referred to, and that THE SUN newspaper published the articles complained of. The reply made to plaintiff’s attack upon Mr. Clutha Mackenzie, the principal of the Institute for the Blind, said counsel, was written by the trustees, who sought out the newspapers in Auckland and asked for it to be publishedNOT MALICIOUSLY ALTERED The document given to THE SUN contained a reply to the attack made by plaintiff, and in the paper it followed a report of a meeting held by plaintiff at Newmarket. The trustees’ reply, said counsel, varied in no way from the contents of the document given by the trustees. His Honour: “Has the context been in any way falsely or maliciously altered.” Mr. Northcroft: I am at present in some difficulty in not knowing what my friend objects to. Mr. J. Hogben: The newspaper scissors cut out a certain amount but we do not allege that anything was maliciously altered or omitted. Traversing the history of the institute, Mr. Northcroft said that the appointment of Mr. Clutha Mackenzie as director was considerably objected to by Mr. Morton Aldis as could be shown by the fact that he personally canvassed the trustees regarding the appointment. After the appointment Mr. Aldis addressed an astonishing document of six pages containing an attack against Mr. Mackenzie, and his qualifications for the position. His Honour: “What was the reason for it? Was it in the nature of a report?” Mr. Northcroft: “It was a spontaneous outburst: uncalled for and certainly unwelcome. The trustees contended that it was a mere impertinence on his part.” SECRETARY REPRIMANDED In this letter, said counsel, plaintiff i not only attacked Mr. Mackenzie’s qualifications for the position but also his personal character. The trustees considered that Mr. Aldis had not accepted the decision of the trustees in regard to the appointment of Mr. Mackenzie in the right spirit, and a reprimand, signed by all the trustees, was sent to Mr. Aldis, impressing upon him the necessity, if he desired to retain his position, of working harmoniously with the director in the interests of the institute. Unfortunately, said counsel, Mr. Aldis found he could not accept the position, and in May, 1926, tendered his resignation. It was accepted on August 12, and within a day or so of that date he compiled a letter making a violent attack upon the institute. The two papers in Auckland at that time, however, refused to publish it, so plaintiff forwarded it to the Prime Minister and other public men interested. Plaintiff had also written to members soliciting attendance at a meeting which he called to discuss the question. This showed that the controversy had been started and carried out solely by plaintiff. The meeting was held at Newmarket on March 28, and on the next day THE SUN came out with a report of the case. Counsel, at this stage, read the report in question. The report, he contended, was an absolutely fair one. It gave what Mr. Aldis said about the trustees and also what the trustees said about Mr. Aldis. The reports published by the other local papers were very much the same, added counsel. FAIR COMMENT The trustees’ reply as published by his clients was the document upon

which they had been brought before the court, and he could not see how such a case could succeed. It was an extraordinary thing, said counsel, why plaintiff had only singled out one newspaper, which had quite rightly thrown its columns open to the question, and which published the matter with proper appreciation of its due. it was also rather extraordinary that plaintiff had not selected the authors of the document. However, the company contended that it had not exceeded the bounds of fair comment and was prepared to stand by its duty in this respect. I consider it would be a sorry thing for the country, concluded counsel, if newspapers were not prepared to throw open their columns, as THE SUN had to the trustees of the institute. RESIGNATION ACCEPTED The Hon. George Fowlds, who is a trustee for the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, gave corroborative evidence regarding the method of administration at the institute. He said that when Mr. Mackenzie’s appointment was being discussed, plaintiff argued with witness almost daily against the appointment. Plaintiff also approached other of the trustees in the same way. When plaintiff forwarded his protest to the trustees, said witness, it was sentiment rather than better judgment that kept him in his position. Later, when Mr. Aldis forwarded his resignation the trustees were pleased at the opportunity of accepting it. Following the meeting held by plaintiff a reply was drawn up by the trustees and forwarded to all the local newspapers. The reply was published by them all. To Mr. Hogben: He did not wish to reflect in any way against plaintiff’s competency as a secretary, but in going behind witness’s back as he did he did not think that plaintiff had been honest in purpose. Personally, he thought he was suffering from an obsession. For the plaintiffs Mr. Hogben said that the libel was contained in the heading to the second part of the report, which read “Failed In His Position.”

His Honour: Do you claim that it is a comment by the paper itself or a comment by the trustees for which the paper is liable. Mr. Hogben contended that it was a statement of fact. “Comment,” he said, “was the judgment of the writer. To put those words in the heading was,” in his opinion, “to remove them from the sphere of comment. The words merely qualified the statement to the trustees’ reply, ‘the undignified talk of a man who had failed in his position.’ ” Giving evidence, plaintiff said that he was a solicitor of the Supreme Court and had occupied the position of secretary to Sir Arthur Myers during the time he was Mayor of Auckland. Witness said that at no time did he allow his difference of opinion with Mr. Mackenzie to interfere with his work. As time went on and the principal got more experience there was less personal disagreement. Also, Mr. Mackenzie had so got the trustees in his pocket that it was useless for witness to try and do anything. THE BOUNDS OF ETIQUETTE To Mr. Northcroft, he said that he considered that Mr. Mackenzie was unsuitable for the position. He admitted that among those who did not know anything about the subject, Mr. Mackenzie was considered to be an authority on blind people. After having formed that opinion he considered that in the interests of the blind people it was advisable to overstep the bounds of etiquette in regard to informing the trustees. Both he and Mr. Mackenzie were outwardly civil and co-operated as much as possible. He did not regard Mr. Mackenzie as his superior officer. The clause in the trustees’ rebuke regarding “his superior officer” was merely intended as adding to the rebuke. He ignored that declaration and refused to consider Mr. Mackenzie as his superior officer. On several occasions, said witness, the staff had come to him about Mr. Mackenzie and told him of what was going on. He had tried to stop them but they insisted on telling him. (Proceeding.)