SLANDER CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 15 May 1929, Page 3

SLANDER CLAIM

FOR £2,000,

[By Telegraph, Per Press Association." l

INVERCARGILL, May 14

In the slander case, evidence on he half of the plaintiff was given by George Frederick Mcßae, a member of the Executive of the Southland Branch of the Farmers’ Union. Witness said that he had attended the Union meeting at which the defendant Sim had made the statement. Witness did not think from the way in which Mm spoke at that meeting that InInal had any personal experience with tlie company, hut rather was speaking 'from the experiences of friends. Tinnewspaper reports were fairly accurate and fairly lengthy. Legal argument was then heard on tlie question of privilege. His Honour, at the conclusion, announced that Alr„ Gilfedder (for the plaintiff) must proceed with tlie evidence for the plaintiff, and when that was concluded, lie would give his ruling. William B-ayliss Ilopcroft said fha J the defendant did not condemn tin whole organisation, hut he said tha a member iff his branch had condemn ed it, and lie added that if an investigation resulted in approval of'tlie organisation by the Farmers’ Union, that would be of immense benefit t tlie Cash Supply Service. The Manage!* of the Cash Supply Service, Ernest Joseph Scanlon, sai l that at January 19 there were 110 fully paid-up subscribers to the concern, an 1 since that time until the present time a period of four months, only nine had heen enrolled. This meant -a loss t tlie organisation of 4G members per month, which, over the ifour monthr meant a loss in money of £966. The organisation was under an obligation to supply its clients for one year, and. therefore, multiplying tiffs loss by three, the total amounted to £2898. In addition to 46 members, 68 had not dealt with the organisation'since January 19th. The statement complained pf had also resulted in the organisation becoming unpopular with merchants, and their prices had jumped up 40.0 r 50 per cent., and. the cus turners had written protesting that i hey could buy goods more cheaply elsewhere. The canvassers of the Cash Supply Service had, since that time, met with..very little success.

In reply.to.Air Afacalistor (for the defendant), Scanlon said that the £9OO damages, previously obtained, had gone to pay back debts. Air Maealister: Did your damage come from, remarks by Sim, or from their publication in the newspapers?

Witness: If it had not been said it would not have.been published! Later, Air Gilfedder asked: Did you anticipate proceeding against Sim when you were suing the newspnpers? Witness: If we had got full damages we would have been normally satisfied. David Dickie, who presided at the meeting in question, said that lie did not take the meaning out of Sim’s remarks that the newspaper reports conveyed. The remarks complained ol were used ;but Sim had said other things that, were not reported. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, his Honour held that the occasion of the remarks was not a privileged one, and the case for the defence was commenced.

Ronald Sim, the defendant, said that he remembered the statements he had made. They were discussing the oils’--%1-der system, and witness asked a question about it. That question had appeared in the papers as if it reierred to the cash supply system. Tie later said that there was a Company operating in Southland, and that there were a. number of farmers in his locality who were not satisfied with its seivice; also that a number of farmers had complained, and had said that the organisation might he a swindle, oi was a swindle. Witness was not sure which phrase was used, but }To was sure he had not named the Cash Supply Service. Mr Gilfedder here road the newspaper report of what Sim was alleged to have said. Witness said the report was neither complete nor accurate. Ho was not sure whether he said that the Company was a swindle, or that the farmers had said they were being swindled. He had not contradicted the report. Mr Gilfedder: Did you not consider it your duty to do so P Sim : The papers put me wrong. 1 did not put them wrong. Further evidence was given *> v Dickie, who was asked by Mr Gil Tedder if he considered the Union Executive had the right to discuss the matter. His Honour: that is a question o r privilege, and T have found that there is no privilege here. Mr Maoalister: Does your Honour intend to allow further argument on the question of privilege after hearing all the evidence? His Honour: 1 might do that. The evidence for the defence was concluded, and the Court adjourned till to-morrow.