ALLEGED LIBEL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 20 March 1913, Page 5

ALLEGED LIBEL.

ACTION AGAINST'A NEWSPAPER

AN INTERESTING CASE,

In the Supreme Court, Masterton, yesterday afternoon, a case was commenced in wliich William Henry Jackson, .headmaster of the Masterton District. High School, claimed £6OO damages from Douglas Moore Graham, proprietor a-nd publisher of the Wairarapa Daily Times, for alleg- . Ed libellous statements, published in • defendant's newspaper. Mr P. L. Rollings appeared for the plaintiff, a.nd Mr A. My ere (Wellington), and with him Dr Trimble for the defence. The following jury was sworn :n: A. R. Sclanders (foreman), W. Whittaker, E. S. Wake!in, R. Reeves, G. Butler, J. Whitta-ker, J. Shearer, T. H. Wickens, J. Lau'renson, T. Moore J. Scott, T. Whitton. ' i Mr Hollings, in addressing the jury, . said this was an action for libel , brought by W. H. Jackson, headmaster of the Mastej; School, against 1). Graham, proprietor and publisher of the Wairarapa Daily Times. Plaintiff had charge of the Masterton School for the past 25 years. For the past six-years he Had been a number of the Masterton Trust L.ands Trust, and a manager of the Technical School for a number of years. The whole of his spare time had been given to other public institutions. Two of the against defendant, published in the 'Daily Times, made a brutal attack upon his position as a. member cf the Trust Lands Trust. Ths first charge, published on August f)th, 1912, took the .shape of anonymous letter published by defendant, and having a footnote attached. The meaning of the letter implied that as a civil servant, and b?ing financially interested, the plaintiff was ineligible j to be a member of the Trust. Plaintiff,' counsel said, was quite eligible to be a member of the Trust, jnd drr- j ing the years of his membership he' never .received one penny from the j Trust, although he put many a- penny into it.' Another implication contain- j ed in the letter was that plaintiff was personally and financially interested in the Trust, and so not a fit and proper person to be a member of same. Th? statement that plaintiff was financially and personally interested in the Trust Lands Trust implied tliat he was not a fit and proper person to occupy a position on that Trust. », Referring to the footnote, counsel said it was meant to be a bulwark, behind which the defendant might retire. It was difficult to, reconcile "More Anon's" letter ivith the remarks by the editor, if. ilie remarks of "More Anon" were quite uncalled for, as the- footnote, staoad, why were they published? The publisher of the newspaper recognised that the letter was. uncalled for, and it should liaip been put in the watopaper basket. The footnote to the letter mad. l it ten times worse .than it would have been'without it. Plaintiff wrote to the editor-'and pointed, out that the letter was grossly libellous, but at the same time It? was not anxious to take any action, Mn Ghevacsn.*, on receipt of plaintiff's letter, rni:g Lira up on the telephone and said the letter of "Mo;\?, Anon," had got into the paper <by mistake; .On November 9th a leading article was published, which implied that plaintiff was not a fit and proper person to sit on the TniSt, 'and that lie was voting on question in which ho was personally interested. Plaintiff was accused of having a "pocKefc"interest in the Trust. Not satisfied with attacking plaintiff's position as a trustee, and challenging his position there, and doing the most cowardly and dastardly thing in attacking the plaintiff's position ps headmaster, and in his relation to his committee. Defendants thought .plaintiff stood in their way, and in order to remove him', they took the liberty of attacking him in his relations to his committee., and so trying to torow ridicule upon him. Mr Jackson was drawn into the discussion, when it was known full well that he had nothing to do with the business of the School Committee, Why was this? Was.it not for the purpose of throwing ridicule upon him? Was it not done in order that the plaintiff would be driven to resign from the Trust Lands Trust. The defendant does not deny that these allegations made are false. It was for the jury to say whether the comments made regarding plaintiff were fair or. not. Every member of the School . Committee would state that plaintiff knew nothing "of the business of the committee. The fact that plaintiff'Vas called upon to'resign from the Trust, wa ; s a direct challenge. Plaintiif lias for the past six years been the leading trustee on the Trust, and this the defendant paper had admitted. This action was brought by plaintiff t:> vindicate his position. It was for the jurv to decide whether the allegations were true or. otherwise, and whether he shall give up his position, because he is interested in the Trust Lards Trust, from a personal and financial point of view* This action was not brought if or money making purposes, but simply to, vindicate his honour and position., Not even costs were asked for. . . W. H.. Jackson, .plaintiff, stated that he was' headmaster of the Masterton .District High s School, a posi- , tiori occupied by hini for 25 years. He had been for 35 years a schoolmaster, He. was elected to the position of member of the Trust Lands Trust six years ago. Was one of the founders o;f, the Masterton Technical School some 17 years ago, :md wab" now chairman of the Board of M an " agers. He was also a member of the committee set up by the Trust Lands Trust and the A. and P. Association, to inquire into the instituting of an Agricultural High School. He read on August 9tli the letter published in the Wairarapa Daily Times, and sign, ed by "More Anon," also the footnote by the editor. . He took the letter to demand his resignation fiom the Trust. In reference to statement regarding being fina.ncia.ily .interested" to the Trust Lands Trust, witness said he thought the statement meant that he had gained some direct financial benefit from being a number of the 'Mist. Plaintiff said that nothing had!" been said in-the Trust Lands. Trust regarding a High School at this time, but a month afterwards a report, was brought down, asking the iriisteOs"to"support"-movemen(J in , favour of an Agncultiiral High School and witness and other trustees vot- j ed in favour of it. Witness said he , was conversant with the Trust AH. ] He had never benefited t'fle penny ] by his position on the Trust. Capita- f tion grants were made to all 'Schools ( without favour. The grants go from { the Trust to the Education Board and f are transmitted to the schodls. c

Scholarship grants were made to plaintiff's school and other schools, as the result of examinations, the basis of which was fixed by the Trust. Counsel's opinion had been taken'in regard to these grants. The letter of August 9tli was the commencement of the attacks on plaintiff. On August 10th he replied to "Mors Anon's" letter of the day before, and challenged "More Anon" to reveal his.identity. "More Anon" wrote a second letter, a few days later, and plaintiff replied to this letter also, and again challenged the writer to; reveal his name, when he would be called upon, to stand a 'charge for defamatory libel. "More Anon" was nit again heard from. The statements made in "More Anon's" letter were not true. Pin ; ntiff stated that l'~ wrote to Mr Chevassus, editor of the' Dailv Times, informing him that he (plaintiff) was informed by his :o!ieitor that "More Anon's" letter contained defamatory libel. Mr Chevas''llll'!" up five minutes afterwards or/] '■ain bo was sorry the letter b"f 1 been nubPshed. r>s it came ili at the last moment. He would publish an explanation in his next issue, and .assured him that Tr>r> publication of the letter nas a mistake. Plaintiff assured Mr Onerp r <v;;i? that be would accept the exolpnnf'on.'and nothinr morn was done t.;]] up, (plaintiff u-as further nrin-r-i-i-xl, as a member of tbe Trust, Lands: Trust. The statement, that counsel's opinion was "of take" oii the of scholarship .grants.' was most untrue, as also was the statement regarding Supi-enje Court proc c clings being taken in r»-of* tho Tnj«t Lands Trust. O-i 0-^ n hoPHvcl article was »uH's ,,r ''! 'i-i the editorial columns of '), a l)ai]v Time's. ■ the reia-mnsH-v 1 -'- tween Ips eonrmittes r.tvl. b-'mself. He had nothing tp do f'i.> n^trd.'scussed by the committ°»' > 1.-".n-r nothing about it till he read it in ih" "Regarding the state+l,.+ t J, A School ■*•»----• ,h' f i ~w it, nlaintiff demed ever having made sucli a statement. He r.onlstatement to oe an attemot to bring his committee and himself into conflict. He. never had any difficulty i" persuading tbe committee •to work with him in the best interests of the school. He bad also been on the most .I'nicabta terms with his committee. Plaintiff wrote to defendant, calling attention to the attacks made en him. and asking for a withdrawal of the charges. This letter was sent on November .19th". On.the same dflv nlaintiff ana defendant met with a view to coming to .a settlement. Another meeting was' also held, and as a result a remodelled form of retraction of statements• was ,written, but was not agreed to by defendant. Ihe previous letter of withdrawal also ignored by defendant. On November 20th defendant published an■ article which he- (plaintiff) did not consider a withdraw a I of the statements or a.s an apology in any sense. Since tbe refusal by defendant to publish th© second letter of retraction, plaintiff had not saen or heard from defendant. i Cross-examined by Mr Myers, plaintiff stated that in the morning paper a statement was made in reference to the meeting, in which Mr Robinson, had made a statement regarding a libel case. There was nothing in the paper to indicate how much or. how little had been said t by Mr Robinson at the meeting. Plaintiff -bad no communication from defendant since his. last letter, and consequently lie considered he was ignored by defendant. The wi;it may have been issued on November 21st or 22nd. There was a meeting to be held in the To\yn Hall on tbe 22nd. and there was no desire to have the writ issued before that meeting. In May. 1907, plaintiff was elected to the Trust Lands Trust. He was quite sure that matriculation grants had been made from tbe Trust before he (plaintiff) became a meyibe>r. It was on his suggestion that matriculation grants wore initiated by the Trust. .No grants were probably naid until.after he ioined the Trust, j

Were the District High School to be disestablished his salary would re reduced bv £3O after two years. But. before that time he would be entitled to superannuation. His school- was ngt the only one whose pupils were to matriculation grants. Only recently a grant had be?n made to a student from a private school in Masterton. He did move at a. meeting of trustees on March 20th, 1908, that all scholars matriculating ■ from the .Masterton School be paid their grants in half-yearly payments. Gross-examined -by Mjr- Myers,, plaintiff said that Mir O. E. Daniel! had not made a statement as to the legality of plaintiff's position,on the Trust; It was not a fact that he had askecl for a grant of £lO for the museum at the meeting at which Mr Wagg made the objection. Mr Myers read from reports of the Wairarapa Daily Times in regard to Mr Jackson having asked that the grant be voted to the school museum. Was this true? Mr Jackson: No. Ma - Myers read a similar statement from the Wairarapa Age. Was that true ? , Mr Jackson: It was not true that he had asked for the grant to be voted. The statements contained i» the reports of' both papers were incorrect. He had noticed that he had 1 been made by the papers to apply for the grant, but he had not contradicted them. Mr Myers : Did Mr Daniell object also at the meeting? Mr Jackson: No. Mr Myers: Did Mr Daniel] challenge your position. Mr Myers then road. Mr Daniell's (remarks from a report of a Trust meeting. •Mr Jackson: ] a-dmit Mi' Daniell said tho.se words. His Honor: Is that not a challenge? Mr Jackson: I did not take it that way. Continuing, Mr Jackson said that there was a section of the public who considered: a free-plaice High School should be established in the district. He knew the establishment of such a | High: School would, if the Minister thought desirable, result in the disestablishment of the secondary classes at the Masterton District High School. He had not opposed the establishment of a Hiigh Sohool in Masterton. He admitted that Mr Robinson's proposal was to establish High School in Masterton - this t ; /. f »:j atnong, Mr- Robinson's : • other , posals; At the meeting held 1) ! Robinson in the. Town Hall o> $ >lr: ust 23rd he had, as was state Daily Times, defended thqj d. in the j High Schools, and had a /"District ther the time was ripe. T sßpd wheopposed the High. Sclic ite hitd not in any way, hut had al _>l movement Bd, it, even to suggest-' . .utiys of a grant from the the., making *r>. 'h i*.'...

purpose. Prior to the first meeting •in regard to the High School movement, ho did not go iround the class rooms with a member of the Scliool Committee and address the pupils. No one in his presence had addressed the children against the High School movement. Parents had not been advised to keep away from the meeting. He had made no statement to the children on the High School subject. He charged the paper with malice. He thought the footnote to "More | Anon's" letter made the letter worse | than it was. He was not prepnred before the editor of the "Daily Times rang him up in regard to "More Anon's" letter to let the matter drop. The editor's explanation lie considered satisfactory. By the expression r "pouring otf and wine," contained in plaintiff's letter, to. the editor, he washed to recognise what he thought was the editor's good intentions. Mr Myers then read a laudatory article which the Times had published in regard to Mr Jackson. Mr Jackson admitted that the leading article in August 24 th'concerning 1 him was a nice one. He civ] not object to the leading article of September 3rd. There was no malice in that article. He admitted that the article treated him kindly and with every regard. It did . not attack his personal honour., The article ail the Times on Semptember 4th sounded all right. Mr Myers: Did you not only, want' the Times to put in the apology but to refrain from criticising you? Mr Jackson (hotly): It is an infamous lie; I did not suggest it. It is a lie and it was circulated rounof and I can tell yon where it originated." ' x His Honor: We do not want to •know that. iMr Myers continued his cross-ex-amination. Mr Jackson said that as. a general rule most of his recommendations were carried out by the School Committee. Mr Myers referred to the case of Grace Waddington, who bad been refused a matriculation grant, .and a boy* named Matheson had been granted one, and asked if it. mighty not be thought an advantage to be a pupil of Mr Jackson's to which Mr Jackson replied in the negative. Re-examined by Mr Rollings: He had no objection to criticism as long; as it was fair criticism." Continuing, lie .said the winning of a scholarship grant by a boy or girl d-'d not benefit him financially to the exent of a single penny. It was a prize solely to the scholar. Alexander Wilson Hogg : "said lie was a- member of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust, and of the -Wellington, Education Board. The grants made by the Trust Lands Trust went to theEducation Board, and from, that bodyto the Scliool Committee. . He* thoufht- the statements in. "More letter was a gross imrmtation* on Mr Jackson's character. He considered thatthe -better of "More Anon" inferred that Mr Jackson had' no right to be on the Trust.

Robert Krahagen, chairman, of the Trust Lands Trust, said that he had' read "More Anon's" letter. He placed the interpretation on it that Mr Jackson was on the Trust for personal gain'. ; His opinion in regard to the article in the- Daily Times of November 9th wa? tha* l Mr Jackson voted on .matters in wh-'ch he had a direct inteivest. As far as he knew no action was being' taken to make an application to the Supreme Court, as suggested by the article in the Times. The trustees had taken legal 'opinion about the grants and based their action oipon such opinion. Cross-examined: He considered "More Anon's" letter a nasty one, lmt the. footnote was all right. Both before and after the publication of "More Anon's" letter the Times had spoken well of Mr Jackson. / Richard Brown deposed that he was 1 chairman of the Masterton School Committee. Mr Jackson, had; nothing to ,do with the application made by the School Committee to the Borough Council, and referred to iirtin- article in the Times. Mr Jackson did not offer any advice on the matter. He considered tnat the reference to Mr Jackson and'the School Committee meant that Mr Jackson exercised an undue influence over the committee. Mr Jackson had tever . adopted the attitude of dictator and master. -The committee would not allow him to do so. The relations be- » tw-een Mr Jackson and his ••onmri.'eo had always been cordial. 'From»memory. he could not name any recommendation made bv Mr Jaqkson, which the committee had rejected, though there had been some. • Arthur James 'Purvis- Hathaway, secretary of the- Trust Lands Trust, said that lie was present at MY jßobinson'c -meeting of. November 22nd. Mr Hollmsrs was about to rsV ihe witness about the a.rticl* in the Times of that date, which had been banded to Mr Robinson, when \Mr Myers objected, His Honor upholding the objection. Cross-examined by Mr Myers Mi* Jackson took nart in the discussions, and voted at Trust meetings. This concluded the evidence for 4 Jw plaintiff, and Mr Mver* moved for a non-suit, on the ground that theie was no libel, and His Honor reserved the point.