NONSUIT REFUSED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 14 November 1939, Page 7

NONSUIT REFUSED

DAMAGES CLAIM BY MEMBER FOR MASTERTON SUPREME COURT HEARING I CONTINUES. it CASE FOR DEFENCE OPENED. t. An application by the defence for a 3, nonsuit was refused by his Honour. Ml is Justice Johnston, in the Supreme t. Court. Wellington, yesterday when th< [. hearing of the £lOOO libel action I- brought by John Robertson. M.P., Do I- minion secretary of the New Zealand ;.i Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association Inc., and editor of that organisation': , G official organ, the ■Bulletin." was ret, stimed. Defendants are two film ex- ;.. hibitors. Garnet Hornby Saunders, p New Plymouth and Harry Thompson i- Napier. Saunders, the first witness calln ed by the defence, was in the box when i. the Court adjourned till this morning. ]: Mr J. S. Hanna is appearing foi (! plaintiff, Mr O. C. Mazengarb foi >s Saunders, and Mr J. Mason < Napier > for Thompson. j SECRETARY’S EVIDENCE. n Constance Lilian Guy. the first wiiness called yesterday, said she did Robertson’s Parliamentary work in conic junction with the association’s work. i- Explaining how she received the •c biographical notes on the candidate:' -.. from Mr Stewart, and how defendants' ■- names were omitted from the list of candidates in the “Bulletin." witness ■- said the day in question was the opening of Parliament and the copy had p to go to the printer that night. Roberth son was absent from the office and Mi y Stewart sent the notes along late ir d the afternoon. Robertson had previous it ly prepared a heading which she was tattach to Mr Stewart’s notes. She past e ed it on for the reason that there had . been a lot of previous trouble with the • printers who had been leaving on > stuff arid printing it on a wrong page Therefore, to make certain that, anyg thing was not left out in such an im- - portant issue she decided to paste i on, but unfortunately the printers neglected to turn over to the second sheet, on which were Thompson’s and Saunders' names. When she discovered their names had been left oubshfrang the printers and said they would have to get out a supplement rectifying the error, and it would have to bedone at their own cost. Mr Mazengarb (cross-examining): 1 suppost it would be fair enough to say Mr Saunders had always been on good terms with Mr Robertson? f Witness: Till this occurred everys thing, as far as I could see, was quite 1 happy. , That was not only in business mat- ; ters but they - were friendly in other » ways. too? —I don’t know anything ; about their lives outside the office. i I think you know of occasions when 1 Mr Robertson has been criticised and ■ Mr Saunders has defended his actions? —My duties are purely secretarial, and - I don’t take much notice whether there ) is a fight or not. Mr Mason cross-examined witness > briefly. L Arthur George Warburton, journal- ; Ist, Te Awamutu. in his written state- ! ment said he was the printer of the- ) "Bulletin.” He described how the : sheets had become stuck together and : how Thompson’s and Saunders's names . had been overlooked. ' "OBVIOUSLY A MISTAKE.” : Austin Patrick Campbell, motioni picture exhibitor, of Pongaroa, said he received a copy of the “Bulletin” and to him the omission of the names was obviously a mistake. Mr Hanna (referring to the open letter which witness received): Does that letter hit anybody? Mr Mazengarb objected to the question. His Honour: You could say “Does it refer to anybody?" Mr Mazengarb: With respect. I submit not. The authorities are quite clear on the matter. His Honour: I admit the question. Both Mr Mazengarb and Mr Mason asked that their objection to the ques-l tion should be noted. j Robertson McGregor Stewart, sec- ( rotary of the Film Exchanges Associa- 1 tion of New Zealand, was the next wit- 1 ness. ' Mr Mazengarb: Frankly, you are not very friendly disposed toward *Mr 1 Saunders? Witness: I am very friendly disposed ( toward Mr Saunders. I have not had , occasion to be otherwise. j After George Frederick Parker. Wei lington, theatre proprietor, had giver. ? his evidence, plaintiff was recalled. Tc * Mr Hanna he said it would be definite- < ly incorrect to say he had fixed the I date of the election. The returning offi- ] cer had the whole conduct of the elec- [ tion in his own hands. , ( That concluded the evidence for c plaintiff. j MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. In moving for judgment for defendant Saunders. Mr Mazengarb. said that for convenience it could be taken as at, 5 application on behalf of defendant 1 Thompson in addition. There were s three grounds for the motion. The ; first was that the words complained of ; were not defamatory of plaintiff; see- ; ondly even if they were the occasion was a privileged occasion, and thirdly there was no evidence of malice. , In the course of extended argument • counsel contended that there was t a complete absence of evidence that the t statements in the open letter were tin true to the knowledge of defendant.-, and it was quite clear in Robertson' mind that defendants did believe wha they had said. The question was whether in his Honour's judgment it was possible fol defendants to believe that what thej t wrote was true. > r Mr Mason addressing his Honour said that so far as Thompson was con corned he would like to draw alien P lion to the evidence in which Robert- i son said he had known Thompson fc> j, some time and they were good friends Mr Hanna quoted from text-books or: the question of privilege. It was one e thing to point out a blunder but quite C another thing to make ;m accusation o’ fi "filthy intrigue" he said. That was tin- q connected and irrelevant, and as irrelevant matters had been introduced the 1 occasion was not privileged. Mr Hanna • submitted that there had been very de- a finite malice, and that violent language j, had been used . His Honour, as stated, refused the motion for judgment for defendants. " In his address to the jury Mr Maz- k ongarb said the defence was not that n Robertson did something tn defendants' ]- prejudice, but the defendants acted bona fide, feeling that someone had " acted to their hurt or ill. 11 The first witness called by the de-\\ fence was defendant. Saunders, who. I n was still in the box when the Court adjourned at 4.30 p.m. till 10.30 a.nt* 10-1 1 day. a