DAMAGES AWARDED

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 28 February 1929, Page 5

DAMAGES AWARDED

CASE AGAINST NEWSPAPERS. INVERCARGILL LIBEL ACTION JUDGE ASSESSES THEM AT £9OO. (By Telegraph— t’ress Association.; INVERCARGILL, Feb. 27. The Libel action brought against the “Southland News” Company and the “Southland Times” Company by the Southland Farmers’ 'Cash Supply Service was continued this morning in the Supreme Court before (Mr Justice Alaegregor, when the ease for the palintiffs was presented. Ernest J. 'Scanlan, senior member of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence that he had come %o Invercargill early in October of 192 S with the object of entering into business. He was now carrying on a similar organisation to the one that had been established for IS years in Australia. Tlie effect of (hose organisations was to help the farmers to’ buy their goods more cheaply. They made no trading profits, relying entirely on an annual subscription of £5 ss. He thought that when fully organised his business could attain that end. As the result of the publication of the statement made at a Farmers’ Union meeting the support of the backers had been withdrawn.

His Honour: I think what you are claiming here is general damages. Witness: Also our trading decreased by 500 per cent. ’His Honour: Surely not; you’d have ceased to exist and have become a minus quantity. Witness: I mean our trading has decreased by four-fifths as a result of the statement. It is almost impossible for us to resuscitate our business. Our representatives are meeting with refusals. 'George Edward Stokes, a member of the firm, also gave evidence, and after counsel’s addresses his 'Honour gave his decision. He said some months after the plaintiffs, commenced to organise their business a meeting of the Southland executive of the Farmers’ Union was held, on January 19, and a fairly full report of the proceedings appeared on January 21 in the “Times” and the “,News.” “Before referring- to the part 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,” said his Honour. “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 a man who is concerned but two newspapers. We have not heard evidence from Sim, who has not been called to modify or explain his remarks. The words which I have to consider are “the,whole organisation is a swindle.’ That is, in effeet, ‘lt is plain that the whole business was organised to swindle th© 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 reason-, able jury would have held that it was proved. " On the other hand, plaintiffs have, used an application form which contains a very foolish and misleading slatemcnt which says that they will supply goods at wholesale rates. It is clearly impracticable to supply at wholesale rates. That expression must be taken with the representations and prices quoted to the farmers who were enrolled.

“I am satisfied that the broad, sweeping statement was hot justified. .Swindling may b e interpreted as scheming to defraud" the farmers, and the evidence shows that the farmers have got some benefit; perhaps not what they expected or perhaps deserved, but a number of farmers have sworn that they got satisfactory results. The' firm could not b. stigmatised because of what had happened. Unfortunately all advertisements are not literally true. It would be unfortunate if every man who advertised something not strictly true was called a swindler.

“The defence must fail and the plaintiffs are entitled to damages. The question of damages is a serious one to both sides. Plaintiffs have suffered severe damages both to their business and their reputations. On the other hand the newspapers published the libellous statement in all good faith. It has been suggested that if plaintiffs had accepted an offer made to .publish a contradictory statement the harm might have been undone, but the libel had been published and no amount of contradiction on the part of plaintiffs could have remedied it. “The plaintiff has claimed £ISOO in each case, £SOO as special and £IOOO as general damages. I do not know that there is any real difference. It has been proved that they have lost or will lose subscribers. It is not likely that farmers will rush to join them after what has been published. I consider that their loss may he estimated as £9OO in all. The effect of the libel might well have, been ruinous to them, but I trust that it will not be so in this case. “I see-by the 1910 Act that it is my duty to apportion the damages and costs. The two defendants are well known and influential newspapers. There is no difference between them. Therefore the damages and costs should bn equally divided between them.” Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £9OO damages with costs as .per scale, disbursements and witnesses ’ expenes to be fixed by the registrar, along with £ls 15s cost for each of the extra days of the trial, the damages and costs to be apportioned between the "two defendants in equal shares.