ACTION FOR LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 133, 1 March 1929, Page 7

ACTION FOR LIBEL

CLAIM AGAINST PAPERS PLAINTIFF AWARDED DAMAGES By Telegraph.—Press Association. Invercargill, February 28. In the libel action brought against the “Southland News” Company and the “Southland Times” Company by the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for £9OO damages, with costs as per scale, disbursements, and witnesses expenses to be fixed by the Registrar, along with £l5 15s. costs for each of the extra days of the trial, the said damages and costs to be apportioned between the two defendants in equal shares. Mr. Justice MacGregor, in the course of his judgment, said: — “Before referring to the part of the section which caused this action, I desire to point out that, while the reports are quite dissimilar in some respects, the words complained of are exactly similar. It looks as if the reporters had laid their heads together and agreed on what should be published. The words quoted are those of a number of dissatisfied farmers who had advised him of their dissatisfaction. The words are certainly libellous, and, if not justified, give grounds for serious damages. “What is meant by justification? In the present case, it is not the man who is concerned, but two newspapers. The words which I have to consider are: ‘The whole organisation is a swindle.’ That is, in effect, that the whole business was organised to swindle the farmers. The question is, has that been proved? Justification has not been proved, and had this ease been heard before a jury, as it should have been, no reasonable jury would have held that it was proved. “On the other hand the plaintiffs have used an application form which contains a very foolish and misleading statement —a statement which says that they will supply goods at wholesale rates. That was explained as having been copied. . . . It is clearly impracticable to supply at wholesale rates. That expression must be taken with the representations and the prices quoted to the farmers who were enrolled. I am satisfied that _ the broad, sweeping statement was not justified. Swindling may be interpreted ns scheming to defraud the farmers, and the evidence shows that the farmers have got some benefit, perhaps not what thej’ expected or perhaps deserved, but .a number of farmers have sworn that they got satisfactory results. The firm could not be stigmatised because of what had happened. Unfortunately all the advertisements are not literally true. It would be unfortunate if every man who advertises something not strictly true was called a swindler. The defence must fail, and the plaintiffs are entitled to damages.”