£3000 LIBEL ACTION

Feilding Star, Volume 7, Issue 2145, 26 February 1929, Page 7

£3OOO LIBEL ACTION

AGAINST INVERCARGILL PAPERS CASH SUPPLY SERVICE ALLEGED “SWINDLE’’ AT FARMEPS’ MEETING lPe>r Proas Association; Invercargill, icb. 25. in the Supreme Court, before -Mr. Justice MacGregor, the lieariug was commenced of a claim for £5lO special damages for loss of customers and :CIOOO- general damages for an alleged libellous publication each from the News Company and Tim is Company arising out of a statement made at a Farmers’ Union executive meeting that the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service “was a. swindle-’’ The statement was published in both papers. His Honour first heard argument on the question of privilege, it being contended by counsel for defendants that \t ought to apply to this ease. His Honour decided against this and the defence rests on the plea of justification. Lengthy evidence is being heard. Adam Lawrence Adamson, secretary- of the Southland provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union, said the alleged libellous statements were made at the provincial executive meeting on Saturday, January 19, allegedly by Mr Pon aid Sim, a mem her of the executive. The Farmers’ Union was, lie would take it, a public body and reports in the newspapers were fair and accurate reports, although not full reports. There was a similar concern to iho Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service -inOtago. The matter of the Southland concern was brought up by Mr S m for the benefit of fanners, generally. To Air Long act (for plaintiffs); The report of what Mr Sim had said was not complete, although there was very little more said. He could not remember who spoke on the. subject, but he remembered Air \V. B. Hoperoi'b speaking and voicing a complaint. He did not remember .anyone speaking favourably of the service although Mr Mcßae had ‘nanded. witness his contract with service. He remembered the president, Air Dickie, stating that if the secretary were given x. 6 5s lie could give equally* (good served. Tile report wa-s- faii",, but condensed., -as~ulLiw>wSrV paper reports were. His Honour: The '.suggestion is; that m the condensation, the favourable part got squeezed out. ’Witness: Oh, no! The condensed' remarks of'Mr-Situ were to the effect, that certain statements were be : ng made, some going so far to say the service was a swindle and that a, committee of investigation should he formed.

The question of pr'viTege was raised by Air o’Beirut (for the Southland News), who contended that this* body, being a largo and influential one, the reports should be privileged, for the protection of the newspapers. The report of the smallest borough, comic 1 was privileged and. he submitted tlfe reports of such bodies as the Farmers’ Union, which did analogeous work, should be allowed the protection of privilege. His Honour: That's a question you should argue up Parliament. Air O’Beirn© went on to say that newspaper companies had requested that the question of privileges be given" the fullest publicity jji the ease of any future Parlbunentary ac turn which might he talien. It

would be of great benefit to newspaper proprietors it the law of privileges were held to iipply to meetings such, as those of farmers’ unions. H s Honour: No doubt. Bis Honour said that with reference to the pica, of privilege, he was satisfied wiat in this ease privilege could not be claimed. The Fanners' Union could not he considered, a. body constituted to conduct public functions, and further, it could not be contended that the statement had. been made at a public meeting. Defendants must therefore fall back an their pi mis of justification. > Air Eustace Russell (for the Southland Times) said that the plaintiff company consisted of two persons, who set themselves up a.y the “Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service,’ and charged a fee of £5 os per annum. The object of the company was, it had been stated, to supply fa ruiers with, goods at wholesale rates. It was, of course, quite .impossiblel for these two persons to supply goods at wholesale, rates and when Hie agents of this so-called company travelled round the iVstirifct, they offered to get goods at wholesale rates for farmers and cur *«o retailer suit aitiixether. Specific quotes had been given for petrol at Is lid a gallon, which' had ultimately cost 2s 2d a gallon, or what the subscriber would have paid at the bowser. The same thing applied to tyres and manures, and no arrangement had been made with, wholesalers us plaintiffs aneged.

Evidence' of definite incidents would be given. Air Russell then referred to an advertisement inserted in the newspapers stating that a full .investigation would be* welcomed and stressed the fact that when a committee from the Fanners’ Union went to conduct such ail in vest’’gallon, permission had been refused by plaintiffs, unless they signed a. document to undertake to treat the matter as confidential. This attitude had been maintained, despite the fact that it was pointed out that if the investigations were satisfactory it would be the best advertisement the concern c-ould have. Evxlence was given by farmers who had been approached and who alleged the company bad not fulfilled the promises made by its representatives. The* bearing was adjourned at tin’s stage till to-morrow.