◆ SpookStack

~4 MAY ’ wo. - QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 7 QUESTIONS ABOUT SPYING PUT ¥al PLAINTIFF IN LIBEL ACTION sninet v STRAUSS v. ASSOCIATED ad POLE Before Mr. Justice Ormenop and @ J, ry The hearing was continued of this adont in which Mr. Kart Strauss, of RudglBh! Avenue, W.8, claimed damages for op ne against Associated Newspapers Lid. igh) spect of the principal item) upon front page of the Daily Mail far Jundctt 1951. under the headlines “* Paris hokig a Strauss” and * Third man link with misy diplomats ? "* yond Mr. Richard O’Sulhvan, Q.C., and See Roland Brown appeared for ue pia Anse Mr. Cyril Salmon, Q.C., and Mr. He ' Milmo for the defendants, ; al sd oniviiine fis cfoss-cxamination ovat, Plainiifi, Mr. Cyril Salmon said that yesttps day the plaintiff had said that the’ notes found by the police hidden in a ph graph in his flat were not notes of microht instructions received from Praguc, but ,were a 'noics received fram Mr. Weishkopf, wim he had said was employed by the B&fish. Counsel referred io the siatement de by the witness 10 the police. that the ‘notes had been made from instructions redbived on microfilm, and the witness repliedei" | did not say it, That sialement was dic- tated by the inspector and given to ne" tead and sign. 1 was promised thatusl signed it nothing more would happen ERR ALLEGATION CALLED “ SHOCKIA?: That is a shocking allcgatian to mak against the police. Are you sugresting that they were asking you io sign someihing that was not truc ?2—-They did not understand. Mr. Weishkopf had told me to put the notes in a safe place because many Czecho- slovakian émigrés came io my flat. / : Which is # Kee the evidence which Pair ave on oath before the conwmiltee whid fla determine whether you should be ddan of British hationatiy, that the notey a. micrafilm were hidden behind tha pAiiheraph, or the evidence which you gage ore my Lord and the jury that incy were get io The evidence which [ gave yestengay ‘ egal lo-day is the truth. ; 7 ace what you told the committee wasyyi rt—{ wouldn't say that; the notes we up. ialst vat, |p only fair 10 give you one more charizep a Police are poing to give cvidence aft what vas found behind the pholograph. © Are Sill telling the jury that the nores behind me photograph were not noies of the m 4 ' nsansiructions feccived fram Prague Tat | t ee | na | They were not notes concerning the mkihe film from Praguc. Do vou- agree that there were five pierry of paper behind the photograph —Yes, ive other pieces of paper 7—Yes. . : amReplying to further questions, the widths | pahat the notes found. by the police lt dictated by Mr. Weishkopf in his Riaiss's) flat. Mr. Weishkopf was ‘ { arebiivcd in London. He agrecd that he eat © police that he gave Mr, Zeman ta ihe by Volic and private mectings hekl by va wing Czechoslovakians and by which ihdi- FPupl statements were made, but said shal , dales and times were invented. ost Of Ue names were invented ; he copied them a, Meipaners. af in Poe mere TEE? Whar: Pasha in P, j neans Of knowing if — | aS Sofia itreouwereipientin abbafiladnyou Must have been inventing “slofles- ot wnii- Communist activities by real | vented some; (hey were a were ROL al all in some danger. ‘ people ?--I in Yesicrday | asked you if you could think ofa more disgusting traffic than that anc you Say that you knowi th you said thai you could : took moncy from Prague these people had relatives slovakia ?~—Yes, And you are asking a British you moncy because the Press have said thay YOu are a spy ?—I asked | ment of the Daily Afail that it was not t > that I was corinected with the diplomais, the police had visited his flat they had 5s | i they came because he was suspec COMRCKION Wilh bin, ma : , JUDGE'S QUESTION " toe. Justice Oxmeroo.—If Mr. Clement ds mentioned only in that part of the pray secings which was heard in camera, how it get into the newspapers 7—2 was nél tthe English Press. Tt was 4 messape fra cchoslovakia received in Switserlandl Ufc Swiss Press published e underground and the England. In iti was justified, In answer counsel, ihe witness said that it was not 4 Teport about his case, but a statement tha¢ cei touch with Clemeniis, He had never been given any information ahou Clementis. When Clementis was execute he was manager of a bank : he was alread} in decline in Prague, but had been foreign secretary before then, after Masaryk died. Masaryk had died when he was forcign secrelary. Hg pad had nothing to do with the death of asaryk. Weishkopl was % reat as he k British ol being in possession of dynamite actif Tiitltary scevets, The five Pieces of pa found behind ihe photograph were piect of paper beating scrawls. After the police left he had a t8lephone cail from them sayi that the investigation was ther was nothing wrone, Nothing more had months later, about making had ever been in this country and after naturalization had been withdrawn he received a certificate of registration under the Aliens Restriction Act. He had not betrayed Mr. Clementis ; he was bui did not betray him, Had il ever been alleged before yesterday im you betrayed Clementis 7—Yes: it gcd ihat through My case the exctuti @ame about because it was Sn fannaving ue! aprened until six false staicments. No charge disclosed that person and so far new he was doing work Age. the H ei ees was" pip wae sem tee emping ‘ bout people who . 200 fury to owe first for the state~ misse at Re-examined, the witness said thar "sal 1 closed and that when he received the Jetler made agains! him by the police iWiS certificate of connected with him, - eel 4 Sy to further questians. from” | SVD ENCY BA BRE SGRES - | Mr. Satmton said that he did not propesc 1B open the case and Wddld CAR'K Reet anice. | we Detective-sergeant William John Jeffeate, id | af New Scotland Yard, pave evidence of Bing to the defendant's flat in (950 to exe- wutea search warrant under the Official Secrets mitt, Itt. Asked about the plainijfl’s re- action when dhe pieces of paper were re . Byrered in the photograph frame, the wit y id he seemed quite calm. The witness gi fit he wrote down a statement madoi Strauss and saw him sign his name bey * the caution, 4 sino Ma. MILMO said that the nisin $f ) Bibrning said that he read the statement | anc Signed it because “the police said | Bathing further would happen. The Wil reas * Méblicd thar he was not told that. ANS ‘ promise or inducement was made to hiny! ‘fe statement was made voluntarily in ext ' ¥. . a” ™ was alleged that Me Plainifl in the course the statement said: “1 frank y¥ co fi in working for re authorities in Pap iy conduct had been dishonourable, I Hai na coward in nat having the courage ty mid the matter by refusing ¢o do any reat work, khave ne relatives in Cagchosi wake Bot! feared the unpleasant develops ‘ aghich would have follawed both for me agi Hy friends among the exilcs had my activ | ihren known (o the British Government by tie ; Beople who controlled me fram Prague. tum ne CASE FOR DEFENDANTS a7 gg: Mx. Surmon said that the evidence: c defendanis was. compleied. ne Ott Medressing the jury he wished io say thai # on the-nica of fair comment would te Aiat whe passage in the articie referring tap Pureess and Maclean meant ¢hat she plai awas the sort of man who might be the i iKith them, and he would invite the jurpil say that in the circumstances as proved Yat Wis fair comment, in the public INtCres pao he sort of man that the plaintiff was, #2 tert ¥@ other point, counsel continued, Pposing the article meant that the plaid | SE s the link, the only defamatory Significagce - ogpeld be shat he would necessarily or prab-' | Say be a paid spy of some couniry behind : We iron curtain. Counsel referred to section | $eo0f the Defamation Act, 1952, and said tthe fact thar the plaintifl was not the mk, because it had never heen suggested in : OMAR he was the actual man who Biers Wace and’ Mackan.to nto. get behind , SER sa He FA RSA TY | | (OVER) Seale Matai eee