ACTION FOR SLANDER.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17711, 15 May 1929, Page 8

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

EFFECT ON BUSINESS.

LOSS OF SUBSCRIBERS.

UNPOPULAR WITH MERCHANTS

INVERCARGILL, Tuesday.

In the hearing of a ciaim for damages for alleged slander, in which the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service claimed £2OOO damages from Ronald Sims, farmer, arising from a statement made at a meeting of the Farmers’ Union, it was alleged the statement reflected on plaintiff's business methods.

George Frederick Mcßae, a member of the executive of the Southland branch of the Farmers’ Union, said he attended the meeting at which Sim made the statement. He did not think from the way in which Sim spoke at the meeting that he had any personal experience with the company, but rather was speaking from the experiences of friends. The newspaper reports were fairly accurate. William Bayliss Hopcroft said that the defendant did not condemn the 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 by the Farmers’ Union, That would be* of immense benefit to the Cash Supply Service. The Manager’s Evidence. The manager of the Cash Supply Service, Ernest Joseph Scanlon, said that at January 19 there were 140 fully paid-up subscribers to the concern, and since that time until the present, a period of four months, oniy nine had been enrolled. This meant a loss lo the organisation of 46 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 therefore, multiplying this loss by three, the total amounted to £2898. In addition, 68 members had not dealt with the organisation since January 19. The statement complained of had also resulted in thp 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 time met with very little success. In reply to Mr Macalister, who appeared for the 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 it 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, who presided at the meeting in question, said he 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. Case for Defence.

Ronald Sim, the defendant, said he remembered the statement he had made. They were discussing the cash order system, and he asked a question about it. That question appeared in newspapers as if it referred to the 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 the 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. He had not contradicted the report. Mr Gilfedder: Did you not consider it vour duty to do so? Defendant: The papers put me wrong. 1 did not put them wrong. Evidence for the defence was concluded, and the Court adjourned until to-morrow.