£500 DAMAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3409, 13 August 1913, Page 5

£SOO DAMAGES.

WAIHI LIBEL ACTION, FEDERATION OF LABOR IN TROUBLE. [PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM] AUCKLAND, Aug. 12. The publication in a pamphlet entitled “The Tragic Story of the Waihi Strike” of incidents connected with the Waihi industrial disturbance resulted in a claim for £IOOO damages for alleged libel being heard by Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court to-day. Plaintiff was Thomas Walsh, of Auckland, and defendant the New Zealand Federation of Labor. Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., with him Mr. Newton, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr P. J. O’Regan for defendant. The alleged libellous words complained of in the pamphlet included the following: “It is to be emphasised and recorded for the consideration of every professed Labor partyite and New Zealand and Sydney Trades Councillor that the so-called Engine Drivers’ Union for which they fought, and whose , apostate they applauded, volunteered for scabbery before the re-opening of the mines, and later on was at work- in Waihi while thousands and over were on strike. There is no plainer instance of scabbery in all its rotten chronicles, and in . the ranks of. the Labor Party were two notorious strike-breaking advocates and organisers (W. P. Blade and T. Walsh). Not then repudiated by party nor expelled from it, these two stood convicted while their colleagues stood craven.” Plaintiff was further described as an “organiser of scabs” and a person who had glorified the police and the employers and befouled strikers. It was alleged that in consequence of these words plaintiff had been greatly injured in his credit and reputation. The defence denied that the w'oras ’were being published falsely and maliciously, and that they were capable of any defamatory meaning. The words were made by way of fair comment, were fair expressions of opinion on matters of public inter set, and were made by way of reply to 'statements in “The Voice of Labor.” After a retirement of over an hour the jury brought in a verdict for £SOO damages, and judgment was entered accordingly, with costs on the middle scale. Mr. O’Regan applied that there be a new trial, on the ground that- the Judge had misdirected the jury through non-direction. When Mr. Reed was addressing the Court, Mr. O’Regan had objected to the reading of certain papers, and his Honor said lie would direct the jury not to take the articles in these papers into consideration when considering the amount of damages; if any. However, when summing up, his Honor had omitted to do this. His Honor said he thought the indication of his intentions was sufficient. However, he would send the jury back so that no injustice might be done. The foreman of the jury assured his Honor that they did not consider the articles at all. His Honor (to Mr. O’Regan): It is useless to move non-direction after that. Air. O’Regan : That is so. Counsel withdrew his objection.