LIBEL ACTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18201, 28 February 1929, Page 10

LIBEL ACTION.

AGAINST SOUTHLAND NEWSPAPERS. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. Dj Telegraph—Preaa 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 Supremo Court before His Honour Mr Justice Macgregor, when the case for piaintiffs 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 lie was now carrying on. A similar organisation had been established for 18 years in Australia. The effect of these organisations was to help the farmer to buy bis goods cheaper. They made no trading profits, relying entirely on the annual subscription of £5 ss. He thought that when fully organised his business could attain that end. As a result of the publication of a statement made at the Farmers’ Union meeting, the support of backers had been withdrawn.

His Honour : ‘‘l 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 libel. 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.

The Judge said: “Some months after 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 the “News.” Before referring to the part, or section, 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. 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 Mr Sim of their dissatisfaction. The words are certainly libellous, and .if not justified, give grounds for serious damages. What is meant by justification P In the present case it is not a man who is concerned, but two newspapers. We have not heard evidence from Mr 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.”

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 plaintiff’s have used an application form which contains a very foolish and misleading statement which says that they will supply goods at wholesale rates. That was explained as having been copied; but that is no use. It is clearly impracticable to supply at wholesale rates. That expression must be taken with representations and prices quoted to farmers, who were enrolled. lam satisfied that this broad, sweeping statement was not justified. Swindling may be interpreted as scheming to defraud farmers, and the evidence shows that 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 be 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 plaintiffs are entitled to damages. The question of damages is a serious one to both sides. Plaintiffs have suffered severe damages, both to their businesses and their reputations. On the other hand the newspapers published tho libellous statement in all good faith. It has been suggested that if the plaintiff had accepted the offer made to publish a contradictory statement the harm might have been undone, but a libel had been published, and no amount of contradiction, on the part of the plaintiffs could have remedied it. Plaintiffs have 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 wish to join them after what has been published. I consider that their loss may be 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 appor-

tion 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, plus £ls 15s costs for each of the extra days of trial, the damages and costs to be apportioned between the two defendants in equal shares.