LIBEL ACTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 62, 28 February 1929, Page 8

LIBEL ACTION

CASE AGAINST NEWSPAPERS JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. £9OO DAMAGES AWARDED. Invercargill, February 27. The libel action brought against the “Southland Times” Company and the “So'uthland News” Company and the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service was continued this morning in the Supreme Court before His Honour Mr Justice McGregor, when the case for the plaintiffs was presented. Ernest Joseph Scanlon, senior member of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence that he had come to Invercargill early in October of 1928 with the object of entering into the business he was now carrying on. A similar organisation had been estabsilhed for 18 years in Australia. The effect of these organisations was to help the farmer to buy his goods cheaper. They made no trading profits, relying entirely on the annual subscription of £5 os. He thought that when fully organised his business could attain, that end. As a result of the publication of the statement made at the Farmers’ Union meeting the support of backers had been withdrawn. His Honour: I think what you are claiming here is general damages. Witness; Also, on trading decreased by 500 -per cent. His Honour; Surely not! You’d have ceased to exist and become a minus quantity. Witness: I mean our trading has decreased by four-fifths as a result of the libel. It is almost impossible for us to resuscitate our business. Our representatives are meeting with refusals. HIS HONOUR’S DECISION. George Edward Stokes, a member of the firm, also gave evidence, and after counsel’s addresses. His Honour gave his decision. He said that some months after the plaintiffs commenced to organise their business a meeting of the Southland executive of the Farmers’ Union met. This was held on January 19. and a fairly full report of the proceedings appeared on January 21 in the “Times"’ and “News.”

“Before referring to the part or section which caused this action,” he said, “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 libellous, and if not justified give grounds for serious damages. What is meant by ‘justification’ ? Tn the present case it is not a man who is concerned, but two newspapers. We have not heard evidence from Sint, 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 effect. It is plain 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 case 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, 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. lam satisfied that the broad, sweeping statement was not justified. ‘Swindling’ may be interpreted as ‘scheming to defraud’ farmers, and the evidence shows that the farmers have got some benefits, perhaps not what they expected or perhaps deserved, but a number of farmers have sworn that they got satisfactory results. The firm could not be stigmatised because 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. QUESTION OF DAMAGES. “The question of damages is a serious one to both sides. Plaintiffs have suffered severe damage, both to their business and their reputations. One the other hand, the newspapers published the libellous statement in all good faith. It has been suggested that if the 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 the plaintiffs could have remedied it. Plaintiffs have claimed £l5OO in each case, £5OO as special and £lOOO as general damages. Ido not know that there is any real difference. It has been proved that they have lost or will lose subscriptions. . It is not likely that farmers will rush to join them after what has been published. I consider that their loss may be estimated at £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 is 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 be equally divided between them.”

judgment was entered for 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 trial. The damages and costs will be apportioned between the two defendants in equal shares.