LIBEL ACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 October 1920, Page 5

LIBEL ACTION.

WATERSIDERS' CLAIMS.' <—, ' *l ' ■- AN>tWUSUAL ©ASE." /; •;■" 4 ~*~* ' . {. , By TMegrash.-ften AwepUtioß. Auckland, Last, Might. A libel action was begun kt the Supreme Court this morning beftre Mr. Justice Salmond. The plaintiff* ftt Henry Green and Joan Meikle, whnrf laborers, of Auckland, each claiming £1(00 from the Now Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation, an industrial association of workers, toying Hf regieteicd office at Wellington, andJamte Roberts, Wellington general secretary, find the Maoriland Worker Printing and Publishing Company, Ltd-, Wellington Mr. T. J. Fleming appeared for pUftitiffs, and Sir John findlay, KC.'aid Mr. Cahill appeared for defendant*, . The allegations made by the pfelatlf* in their claim were that certain ittf»> ments published'by defendants In tf report of the Federation's fifth 'naraal conference at Napier in December, HUB, contained words which, takes' as a i whole, were used deliberately tot die i purpose of arousing, against plaintifli, ; hatred and contempt, and the ndicSte ; of members of the defendant auodsttaa, j and of all New Zealand unionists. They [alleged that the words were understood ;to mean that plaintiffs had, from a~ j spirit of meanness and mSlitaney, : brought an improper action aaaiatt tie i defendant association] that iheywete j bad unionists, whose names should it i recorded so that it would be known to ; all trade unions that they acted meanly; I that they were disseminators of rrelutionary doctrines dangerc-ris to the State and to trade unionists; and i&at [ they were contemptible persons M [ had character and traitors who would i betray business secrets of the assocfeI tion, and that, in conjunction with another man, they were upsetting the I waterfront at Auckland. j Plaintiffs claimed that they* had thereI fore been injured in their credit and reputation, and had become victims of ! the hatred and ill-will of members of I the defendant association, who had re- ! fused to work with them, with tht re- | sult that they were prevented from folj lowing their usual calling as wharf ! laborers. In addition to each chum"' i ing dEIQOO, plaintiffs asked, for an injunction restraining defendants from the ' publication of the said statements, and-' costs of the action. The defence was a general denial, and j it was contended that if the statements were published, which was denied, the j occasion on which the words were tfsed ' was privileged, in that it was when the protection of the interest* of the defendant association and of .all unionist workers, was concerned. It was also asserted that the words were not excessive to the occasion, and their publication was not excessive, having regard to the interests affected. Defendants further denied hating been actuated by malice. A further defence was that if the words were printed or published they were fair comment* made in good faith. ''""" u Mr, Fleming said his client* had tarn members of the Auckland Waterside f Workers' Union for a considerahje time. Green had occupied prominent lloßH'ones on the executive. Trouble arose through plaintiffs, and another member named Colvin, objecting last year to pay .'the. legal aid levy of ]g annually reeom- x mended by the defendant federation on the ground that they did not eo*t£der' it could be imposed on members without a ballot. The plaintiffs were "jumped on" by the executive, and consequently vver e debarred from obtaining work on the wharf. Colvin took proceedings in the Magistrate's Court against the Union, nnd was awarded £lO, and the present plaintiffs, in a similar action, each received £5 damages. Although the Magistrate thought they were obstinate, however, the plaintile were fighting for the principle that a nan could "not be taxed without the consent ' of himself or his representatives. The alleged libel had pnt upon plaintiffs the hallmark of the Federation's! disapproval,' and employers would be called to give evidence that they feared to employ plaintiffs, because «f - the power of the watersiders. The sower these men held was immense; they could hold up the whole country If they wished. Sir John Fftidlay: I object; that is pure prejudice. Green then gave evidence. Sir John Findlay stated that the fendant federation and the secretary, Roberts, accepted responsibility for the publication, but it was a question whether the mere fact of printing amounted to publication on the part of the printer. A lively cross-examination opened, after Sir John Findlay asked witness to try and keep his temper m answering questions. Green gave an emphatic denial to, several questions, which counsel said were intended to show that witness wag a "source of great trouble, annoyance, and mischief-making on the waterfront in Auckland, and that {he feeling against him was not due to the defendants publication, but to other causes," His Honor asked witness not to make. speeches, and Green promised to try. to follow the instructions. He apelo--gised for speaking in a loud voice, but ■explained that on the waterfront it grew on oneAfter further evidence had been heard, the case was adjourned.