ALLEGED LIBEL.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 October 1918, Page 3

ALLEGED LIBEL.

AUDiiRX v. HAWKI.NS, JUDGMENT Mi £5. Before Mr. A. Crooke, S,M,, at Stratford, yesterday, a claim for ilflO was preferred by Cecil Ardern against Captain. W- H. Hawkins. The claim was: (1) The plaint iff is a licensed victualler, lessee of the Empire Hotel, situated at Stratford; (■>) that on June 2li, defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published in the Taranaki Daily News "'What 1 did say was 'that the refusal of the Stratford Band (a public body subsidised by municipal and public funds) to play for a branch of a world-wide organisation such as the W.CT.U., even after the band's fee was guaranteed, constituted a publie scandal'": (3) furtheimore. I stated that, ''knowing the liquor tra/fh: methods so well, I was quite sure, if it were possible to get a peep behind the scenes, the slimy hands of the liquor traffic would be founil." 1 also made some reference to the traffic presenting bands with instruments, drums, etc., and striving in other ways well known to the intelligent public to make its evil influences felt. In addition, I distinctly remember stating that my remarks did not apply to all the members of the Stratford Band. They do, of course, apply to all rlie trade champions. (4) That these words were published tt). mean: That the band's conduct constituted a public scandal; that the "slimy hands'' of -the liquor traffic (meaning thereby the plaintiff) caused this public scandal: that the liquor traffic (meaning t'ne plaintiff) presented a drum to the band in order to make its evil influence felt and to hinder it playing for the W.C.T.U.: that the writer's remarks applied to all "trade champions" (meaning thereby the plaintiff) (5) That the plaintiff has thereby suffered damage and has been greatly injured in his credit and reputation. The plaintiff thus claims damages in the .sum of A similar letter also appeared in the Stratford Evening Post. Messrs A. H. Johnstone and A. Colenih'n appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. At£";nson (Wellington) represented Captain Hawkins.

"Tn opening the case, counsel stated that Ardern was licensee of the Empire Hotel, and on Thursday, .Tune 30, defendant delivered a lecture on "Liquor as Delating to the War " He admitted that defendant was not responsible for the wording of the advertisement. After the address, in responding at the closa of the meeting, defendant referred to the fact that the hand did not play outs!de. and went further by stating that the liquor party was responsible for the non-appearance of the tend. The WC.TU. were the promoters of the meeting, and desired a band. The Stratford I!an<f had been asked to play, and application was made, to the conductor (Mr- Spurdle). but owing to there not being sufficient player-: available the band would not play. The AV.C.T.U. imported a band. Later on meetings of the Licensed Victuallers were held and resolutions passed and published m the press, also letters from Conductor Spurdle, compainmg of Captain Hawkins' remarks. Defendant's letters in the Daily News and Stratford Evening Tost were similar, and, m reply to the resolutions passed by the Licensed Victuallers' Association. He then read the letter of defendant's appearing m the Daily News. Counsel contended that the statement indicated that the liquor party had the control of the band. Ardern had presented a drum valued at £7 los. He made the presentation some months before the meeting. The tion was made to help the band along. What was objected to in the statement was the question of the drum indicated that Mr. Ardern was the person Captain Hawkins indicated. Defendant had an opportunity to retract his statements. Continuing, Mr- Johnstone contended the letter indicated dishonest motives on the part of plaintiff in "getting at" the band. His client was not out for monetary damages, but 'desired damages for the statement.

Cecil' Ardern stated that he learned the drum the band bad was almost useless, and lie presented them with another instrument. Regarding the letter, he bad forwarded Captain Hawkins, it was bv Ills instructions, and be bad not been influenced by the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Regarding the resolutions passed by the Liquor Party, although lie was a member of the association, tie bad nothing to do with either of tne two. resolutions, and did not know' anything about these until quite recently. To Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Foley was a publican and also a member of the band. Kolev was present at a meeting of the party when Captain Hawkins' letters were discussed. Foley did not take part ill .the discussion or mention anything to Vitness. The meeting discussed the miestion of proceeding against defenant, but he could not remember all He had forwarded a letter to defendant requiring an apology, and signing bis own name.' He denied any arrangement was made ■with the Liquor Party as to who was to pay the costs, or who was to got "all the brag." He denied that Foley was at the back of the claim. He admitted that Foley was a bandsman and publican, but could not see that Foley "'bad a double-barrelled gun to his single barrel"

Tn reply to the S.if., counsel said ho was endeavoring to prove that Ardcrrt was put up as a blind to protect the whole interest of the tradeContinuing, witness said he could not say whether other members of the ti&dg were in the hand besides Foley, and he could not sav whether Malone wna on (lie executive. Wilson was a bandsman and elided in hotel work. Jn bringins: forward the claim,, he did so to protect his oharaeter. TTe admitted he did not lose any custom., sleep, or health, and did not think his friends shunned him aa a result of defendant's letters. Constable Tizzard staled that in Aligns!.. imr. Mr. Anient presented tlio baud with a. drum. Resardiii" the night of the lecture, the. band was shorthanded, and decided not to play out. TTe saw defendant's letter in the paper, and lialieved it wan \NIr. Ardo.ru that was i meant.

To ?.lr. At!-'in=on: the reference to lie drawn, hj" l id not think an atiae;* wr's n.:"'>' on Mr. Ardem. any more than on any other member of the trade. TTe would not expect any publico v. to plav a! a. prohibition \ r n vote was taken on the matter, but the band was small. and only nine players w-re proilnble. T'hilin town elerk. rcmemlinv.v.l (bd nicctm". Tin Vnew V>\ Ardom i>n.l •nve-i'nfed n. drum, and took Cavti'n Hawkins' letter to refer'to Mr. Ardci"

To Mr- Atkinson: The band was now a municipal band, and received a subsidy for giving a certain number of performances: each year. The letter gave him the imprt.—'ion that the gift was made to help Ardern to influence and helo others.

L. Spindle, conductor, remembered being approached by Cooper and Masters regarding the services of the baud at, the W.C.T.U. meeting.

To. Mr. Atkinson: There was lio doubt in his mind that the Liquor-Party had nothing to do with the band's refusal. His experience was that no band should play at prohibition or liquor n'cef.lngs. He did not mention to MrMasters that Foley objected to playing. The Liquor Party had nothing to do '."ith Mr, Foley dropping out of the band.

W. Landers, P>. Cottier, J- Lister, and A. ,T. Davey save evidence, stating they had read Captain Hawkins' letters, and, knowing that Mr. Ardern had donated a. drnm, considered lie was the man defendant was hitting at. Mr. Atkinson, in opening, said that Captain Hawkins liail 110 desire or intention to injure Mr. Ardern, nor to attack liitn. Tt una not a case of quarrel, and lie did not know that Ml*. Ardern had given a drum when lie matte the statement. The whole of the evidence was eenv.rcd on the paltry, tinpot matter of a drum, and the serious part of thtj iil-o! had not been considered, Defendant had no quarrel with Ardern. but-with the trade, and lie expressed himself frankly arvl unquestionably on the matter. He did not go on the platform to say a word against plaintiff, and made no statement against his characterThey were asked to believe that it was not the Liquor Party but Ardern himself that was behind the action. This lie railed a "cock-and-bull story." Pefrsrdinjr tlio Liquor Trade, this was a business that vVas open to fair comment, and the band, being a public body, was also open to fair comment. If anyone had reason to complain it was the band. 7'ut the band did nothing, and he coi'ld not help thinking Arcrn was championing the interests of the Liquor Party. Defendant, had no knowledge of defendant's gift when he made the statement. Tt was a specific statement of the actual position, and fair 'comment. Tt was purely accidental that defendant's staeinenta about gifts hail evidently "fitted the cap." Tie wanted to know where the libel came in, and in what way the band or defendant suffered. To give a drum to the band was no crime; it might be an advertisement. A man in the hade might. give anything to a band or institution to keep their custom. There was no suggestion of bribery or corruption in the statement'. Plaintiff s ch.araet.er was not assailed, but rather the nature of the trade was what Captain Hawkins bad assailed. .Tonas Masters, merchant said that when the meeting was arranged lie endeavored to get a band,,and interviewed' the conductor. He did not. expect the band to play for nothing, and was prepared to pay a fee. He was told that the band would not be available, and that Foley was in the band, and, being a publican, would not play. Defendant (Captain Hawkins), a member of the Expeditionary Force, stated that he had no knowledge of the band declining to play until at the close of bis meeting. He denied having any talk about the band with Mr- Masters. To Mr. Johnstone: He believed then, and did so now, that the Stratford traffic was at tM back of the band's refusal to play. The evidence that day showed it. It was the traffic system all over the world—nobbling. Mr. Johnstone desired an instance where a hand had been presented with a drum, but witness admitted be could not recall anything for the moment. Yet it was a type of the general tactics of the trade, and counsel knew it too. Mr. Johnstone: T don't know it. Will you swear you did not say, "This was another way of putting beer in the doorway?"

Witness: Very possibly I may have said that.

To counsel: He did not think lie would say there wore no prohibitionists in the band. He admittted it was possible be bad said that all '''Trade champions" were liars-, but be should not have done so, as all publicans were not champion liars. Regarding Mr. Spurdle's letter and his reason for not replying, he did not believe Mr. Spurdle. Mr. .Johnstone: Then you say it is a lie ?

Defendant: Well, yes, if you put it that way?

Counsel: Very well; do you put it that way

Defendant: No, I do not. Counsel: Well, how would you put it? Defendant: I don't, believe it- He was deceiving himself.

Witness was questioned reagrding his quotation of "slimy hands of the trade,'' and replied thai it might mean the trade might set- somebody to give them fi rrift.

The S.M. thought the letter could be termed lihell'ous- Without any justification, defendant had come to the conclusion that it was because of the trade's influence that the band bad refused to play, and tlnr; made the statement complained of. Mr.' Ardern nad given an instrument, and this seemed to coma within i.he reach of Captain Hawkins' critic-ism. The latter, however, did not know at the time of the donation of a drum. On the question of damages, plaintiff had admitted that his character and business bad not suffered, and be had not in any v. ;.:v % -een affected by , the libel, except that lie had been accused o f givin? the drum for the purpose of getting a hold on the band and preventing it rdaving at this and similar meetings. Tt was a small and trivial en«{\ If it was not for the feelinc; existing between the Prohibitionists and (he Liquor Party, he believed the case woijlfi not have been brought.. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £3 and costs.