A LIBEL ACTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18200, 26 February 1929, Page 7

A LIBEL ACTION.

CLAIM AC A INST NEWSPAI’KItS. I.WKRCAKGI LL. Fel>ru:irv At tho Supremo Court, l.etere .Mr Justice MacGregor, the hearing of a ! claim for £SOO special damages, for the less of customers, and £1.01)0 wneral damages. fur an alleged ■■News'- Company' 0 o’ml the ' “Times” Company, arising out of a statement made at a Farmers’ Union Executive meeting, “that the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply service was u swindle,’' is being heard. The statement was published by both papers. His Honour heard argument on the j question of privilege, which it was I contended bv counsel for defendants, I applied to this case, i His Honour decided against this, and the defence rests on a plea of j justification. j Lengthv evidence is being heard. I Adam Lawrence Adamson, secretary I of the Southland Provincial Executive ! of the Farmers’ Union, said that the ! alleged libellous statements were made ! at a provincial executive meeting on ! Saturday. January 19, allegedly by Ronald Sim, a member of the Execui live of the Farmers’ Union, which was, > he would take it, a public body. The reports in the newspapers were fair | and accurate, although not full rei ports. There was a similar concern to the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service, in Otago. The matter of the Southland concern was brought up by Mr Sim for the benefit of farmers generally. To Mr Longuet (for plaintiffs') : The report of what Air 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 Mr W. B. Hopcroft speaking and voicing a complaint. He did not remember anyone speaking favourably of the Service, although Air Alcßae had handed witness his contract with the Service. Pie remembered the president (Air Dickie) stating that if the secretary were given £5 5s he could give equally good service. The report was fair, but condensed, as all newspaper reports His. Honour: “The suggestion is i that in condensation tlie favourable 1 part got squeezed out.” j Witness: “Oh, no. The condensed i remarks of Air Sim were to the effect that certain statements were being made, some going so far as to say I that the Service was a swindle and j that a committee of investigation j should be formed.” The question of privilege was raised hv Air Obeirno (for the Southland “News”), who contended that this body, being a large and influential one, reports should be privileged for the protection of newspapers. The report of the smallest Borough Council was privileged, and he submitted that reports of such bodies as the Farmers’ Union, which did analogous work, should be allowed the protection of privilege.

His Honour: “That’s a question for you to argue in Parliament.” All* Obeirne went on to say that newspaper companies had requested that the question of privilege be given the fullest publicity. In the case of any further Parliamentary action which might be taken, it would be of great benefit to newspaper proprietors if the law of privilege were held to apply to meetings such as those of the Farmers’ Union. His Honour: “No doubt.”

His Honour said that with reference to the plea of privilege, ho was satisfied in this case that privilege could not ho claimed. The Farmers’ Union could not be considered a body constituted to conduct public functions; and further, it could not bo contended that the statement had been made at a public meeting. Defendants must therefore fall back on their plea of justification. Air Eustace Russell (for the Southland “Times”), said that the plaintiff company consisted of two persons who set themselves up as the “Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service,” and charged a fee of £5 5s per annum. The object of the company was, it had been stated, to supply farmers with goods at wholesale rates. It was quite impossible for these two persons to supply goods at wholesale rates and when agents of this so called company travelled round the district they offered to get goods at wholesale rates for farmers, and cut out the retailer altogether. Specific quotations, had been given for petrol at Is lid per gallon, which had ultimately cost 2s 2d per gallon, or what the subscriber would have paid at a bowser. Tho same thing applied to tries and manures, and no arrangement had been made with wholesalers, as plaintiffs alleged. Evidence of definite incidents would be given. Air Russell then referred to. an advertisement inserted in the newspapers stating that full investigations "would be welcomed, and ho stressed the fact that when a committee from the Farmers’ l liion went to conduct such investigation. permission had been refused by the plaintiffs, unless they signed a document undertaking 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 could have. Evidence was given by farmers who Jiad been approached by representatives of the plaintiff company, which, thev alleged had not fulfilled promise's made by its representatives, inoroJ' ear ' was adjourned till to-