LIBEL ACTION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21188, 10 August 1940, Page 9

LIBEL ACTION

£IOOO DAMAGES CLAIM THE STANDARD AS DEFENDANT REPORT OF COURT CASE (By Telegraph.—Special to Times) AUCKLAND, Friday An action against the Labour | newspaper, the Standard, was commenced before Mr Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court today. Francis Simpson, printer, of Auckland, claimed from the New Zealand Worker Printing and Publishing Company and John Glover, the publisher, the sum of £IOOO damages for an allegedly false and malicious publication respecting plaintiff in the Standard of April 11, 1940. Mr J. F. Dickson and Mr T. Henry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. H. Johnstone, K.C., and Mr J. J. Sullivan for the defendant. The publication complained of was a report in the Standard, of April 11, of proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland under the. headings “Charges Against Five Communists,” “Alleged Publication of Subversive Reports.” In this, it was alleged, plaintiff was referred to as “associated with the Communist paper, the People’s Voice.” Interpretation Claimed Plaintiff claimed that this report was understood to mean that he was a Communist: that in the eyes of honest people Communist parties were held in contempt and were traitors to New Zealand. He alleged it meant he was a revolutionary and disloyal to King and Empire; that he was not prepared to fight or support the Empire; that he was associated with a Communist newspaper; that he was a member of the Communist Party and that he was in favour of the Empire stopping the war immediately. By reason of this, plaintiff claimed he had been greatly injured in his character, credit and reputation, and in his business, and had been brought into public hatred, ridicule and contempt. For this he asked £IOOO damages. Defence Denies Meaning The defence admitted publication, and said that a bona fide mistake had been made without malice. At the earliest opportunity and before the commencement of this action there had been inserted in the Standard on May 2 an apology and expression of regret in a form approved by plaintiff.

It was further pleaded that the words were a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings, published bona fide for the information of the public, and were therefore privileged. The defence denied that the words complained of were capable of bearing the meanings alleged or any other defamatory or actionable meaning. In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr Dickson said it was an action for defamation of character. The facts were that plaintiff was charged in the Auckland Magistrate’s Court with breaches of the Censorship and Publicity Emergency Regulations of September, 1939, in connection with the printing of certain pamphlets alleged to be subversive within the meaning of the regulations. He was fined £lO on each of the four charges connected with the four pamphlets. The Standard published a report of the proceedings, headed “Charges Against Five Communists.” Description of Report The plaintiff was not a Communist, was not connected with the Communist party, and did not subscribe tc the Communist policy. The report described the five persons charged as the acting-editor, publisher and printer of the People’s Voice, and the secretary and an executive member of the Auckland Communist party. His client was none of those. As soon as that was published, the plaintiff saw counsel and complained that the statements were defamatory, and he climed damages and a retraction. He was a printer by business and did not subscribe to the policies of pamphlets he might undertake to print for other people.

Plaintiff, who said he had been in Auckland for 22 years and carrying on business as a master printer for 14 years, stated that he was not a Communist and was not, and had never been, in any way connected with the Communist Party. He printed for all classes of the community, and did not associate himself with the ideas he published. Mr Dickson was given leave to put to the witness reports from the Auckland daily papers of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court, and he agreed that these were fair and accurate. So far as these papers were concerned, his position was made quite clear. He was in no way connected or associated with the People’s Voice. The Standard had published a correction and apology, but had paid him no compensation. Remarks By Bowlers Since this allegation against him he had not gone to the Ponsonby bowling green, where he was a member, said witness, because of remarks that were passed, and he had lost work from customers. He did not read the pamphlets he printed. He had never heard before of the regulations under which he was charged. At the most he had done £175 worth of printing for the Communists out of a total turnover of £32,000 in the last two years. In answer to Mr Johnstone, witness said it was correct- that foui Communists had been charged along with him. Of the four pamphlets concerned in the prosecution he had printed 50,000 of one, 21,000 of another, 6000 of another and 5000 of ! another. He admitted having printed The Young Communist in 1935. He denied that the police had warned him recently that he was printing subversive pamphlets. It was not true that he charge the Communists more than other customers. The pamphlets he had printed were dangerous, and they had been suppressed. Evidence was given by Joseph Allen Davey, compositor, that he understood the Standard report to mean j that Simpson, whom he knew, was ■ a Communist, a Communist being one who was disloyal to the Throne, a * traitor to New Zealand and under- ! mining the Empire’s war effort. He I had promptly got Simpson’s assur- | ance that he was not a Communist. i The case was adjourned until I Monday.