ALLEGED SLANDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20255, 15 May 1929, Page 16

ALLEGED SLANDER.

CLAIM FOR £2OOO DAMAGES. REMARKS AT A MEETING. COMPANY SUES FARMER. [BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.] INVERCAHGILL, Tuesday. The heaving of a claim for damages for alleged slander was commenced in the Supreme Court to-day. The Southland Farmers' Cash Supply Service claimed £2OOO damages from Ronald Sims, farmer, arising from a statement made at a meeting of tho Farmers' Union, it being alleged the statement reflected on plaintiff's business methods. Evidence oti behalf of plaintiff was given by Georgo Frederick McKae, a member of tho executive of tho Southland branch of tho Farmers' Union. lie said ho attended tho meeting at which Sim mado tho statement. He did not think from tho way in which Sim spoke at.the meeting that ho had had any personal experience witli tho company, but rather was speaking from the expediences ot friends. The newspaper reports were fairly accurate. Question of Privilege. < Legal argument Was then heard on the question of privilege, and His Honor announced that Mr. Cilfeddcr, who appeared for the plaintiff, must proceed with evidence for the plaintiff and when that was concluded His Honor would gi\o his ruling. William Bayliss llopcroft said that the defendant did not condemn tho whole organisation, but said that a member of his branch had condemned it, and added that if an investigation resulted in the approval of the organisation bv the I'aimers' Union, that would be of immense benefit to the Cash Supply Service. The manager of the Cash Supply Service, Ernest Joseph Scanlon, said that at January 19 there were 140 fully paidup subscribers to tho concern, and since that time until tho present time, a period of four months, only nine had been .enrolled. This meant a loss to the organisation of 4b members a month, which over four months meant a loss in money of £966. The organisation was under an obligation to supply its clients for one year, and therelore, multiplying this loss by three, the total amounted to £2898. In addition 68 members had not dealt with the organisation since January 19. Protests by Customers. The statement complained of had also resulted in the organisation becoming unpopular with merchants and prices had jumped up 40 or 50 per cent., continued witness, and customers had written protesting they could buy goods more cheaply elsewhere. Canvassers of the Cash Supply Service had since that tune met with very little success. In reply to Mr. Macalister, who appeared for tho defendant, Scanlon said that the £9OO damages previously obtained had gone to pay back debts. Mr. Macalister': Did your damage come from remarks by Sim, or from the publication in newspapers? Witness: If if had not been said it would not have been published. Later Mr. Gilfedder asked: ''Did you anticipate proceeding against Sim when you were suing the newspapers":" Witness: If we had got full damages' we would have been normally satisfied. David Dickie, \\ho presided at the meeting in question, 'said ho did not take the meaning out of Sim's remarks that the newspaper reports conveyed. The remarks complained of were used, but Sim said other things that were not reported. At tho conclusion of plaintiff's case His Honor held that the occasion was not a privileged one, and the case for the dofence was commenced. Evidence by Defendant. Ronald Sim, tiie defendant, said he remembered the statement he had made They were discussing the cash order system and ho asked "a question about it. That question appeared in newspapers as if it referred to tho Cash Supply Service. He later said there was a company operating in Southland and there were a number of farmers in his locality who were not satisfied with tho service. A number of farmers had complained and had said the organisation might be a swindle or was a swindle. Defendant was not sure which phrase was used, but he was sure he had not named the Cash Supply Service. Mr. Gilfedder read a newspaper report of what Sim was alleged to have said. The report was neither complete nor accurate, said defendant. He was not sure whether he said the company was a swindle or that farmers had said they were being swindled, lie had not contradicted the report. Mr. Gilfedder: Did you not consider it your duty to do so ? Defendant : The papers put me wrong. 1 did not put them wrong. Further evidence was given by a witness, who was asked by Mr. Gilfedder if ho considered the executive had the right to discuss the matter. His Honor: That is a question of privilege and I have found that there is no privilege here. Mr. Macalister: Does Your Honor intend to allow further argument on tho question of privilege after hearing all the evidence? His Honor: I might do that. Evidence for the defence was concluded and the Court adjourned until to-mororw.