DAMAGES SOUGHT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 647, 26 April 1929, Page 11

DAMAGES SOUGHT

FLYERS’ HEAVY CLAIM WHAT “THE GUARDIAN” PRINTED If it eventuates, the legal action, Squadron-Leader C. Kingsford Smith and Flight-Lieutenant C. T. P. Ulm v. Smith’s Newspapers, Ltd., as proprietors of “The Daily Guardian,” Sydney, will attract greater attention than any similar case in recent years. Coming hard on the heels of the widely-advertised search for the missing Southern Cross, and its discovery on a lonely mud-flat in North West Australia, the announcement of the aviators’ claim for £20,000 damages added another, if milder, sensation to those which accompanied the latest and nearly-tragic emprise of Smith, Ulm, McWilliams and Litchfield. It was a surprising aftermath, at least to New Zealand, where none but eulogistic criticism of the flyers, their methods, and the circumstances of their forced landing and discovery, had been penned.

New Zealand newspapers and majority of Australian journals | contented themselves with the | fullest possible report of the search for the Southern Cross, editorial expressions of hope for the safety of the men, and finally, ipso facto accounts of the finding of the airplane. Iu a broad sense “The Daily Guardian,” whose news stories have been followed by the big claim for damages, does not appear to have digressed from this common course. Its published statements have been practically identical in fact with those published everywhere. But there has been one difference, the importance of which will be weighed by the court when the claim for damages is heard. It is that the “Guardian's” reports have contained a certain measure of comment introduced in various ways, direct and indirect. It will be for the court to decide whether or not the introduction of adjectives, expressive punctuation marks, and typographical empsasis, together with the setting out of sundry facts so as to invite the reader’s logical investigation, constitute | grounds for damages. “HOW SMITHY GRINNED” After the news of the discovery of the Southern Cross had been received in Sydney, the “Guardian” embellished its announcement with the observation that “circumstance had played a startling but happily not a tragic jest on public emotion.” It then described as “sardonic” the story of “how Smithy grinned when the wireless received by them related the acute fears of all Australia and the activity of the prolonged search.” Prominence was given Kingsford's Smith’s reply to a question from Pilot Heath as to why a signal fire was not lit. The paragraph was:—“We were too weak to climb that hill,” said Kingsford Smith (pointing to one about a mile away, “and it was no use lighting it on the level here.” After asking for a Royal Commission to inquire into tile Southern Cross fiasco,” the “Guardian” said: “The purpose of the commission should be to inquire whether there were defects in organisation and equipment which left the men so unexpectedly resourceless within a few walking miles of Port George Mission, and their own complete safety.” Added to the report that the airmen lived for a time on a diet of grass and snails was the observation: “The grass is a weed with berries growing on it, which is practically unknown in Wyndham. though several have given it different names. The snails are really species of shellfish.” REQUEST FOR INQUIRY The “Guardian” invited the Sydney “Sun” syndicate to join in the request for an inquiry, and said: “Alike the Australian citizens and the Australian Government have spent many thousands of pounds of money in searching for the stranded airmen, and public excitement and anxiety have been intense. “The whole world observed the surprisingly prolonged disappearance of the flight party, and the whole world watched the strangely futile search until the 12th day. Australian aviation has received a bad advertisement. in the episode.” The story by the “Guardian’s” special correspondent included and repeated the theme sentence: “Just sticking round.” It observed that the reason why a signal fire was not lighted was unexplained. Then, in a further article, two extracts were given typographical prominece. There were as follow: — From the Sunday “Sun”: “Two men could be discerned at the machine, and two were observed on a hill. One of the men ran at a vigorous pace down the hill.” From the Sydney “Telegraph” (also one of the syndicate newspapers financially interested in the flight): “The physical strength of the men seems to he good. One member of the party raced down a grade of about 100 yards to pick up our messages-.” Mention was made by the “Guardian” of the fact that the party could not transmit wireless messages, after which it was said that "a reasonably low voltage might have sent out a short-wave message to he picked up somewhere in Australia.” Finally the newspaper printed the straight-out statement: “Many other points could be raised gravely affecting the organisation of this commercial flight, after a close study of | Ulm’s diary.”