SLANDER CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 16 May 1929, Page 3

SLANDER CLAIM

VERDICT FOR £25 ;By Telegraph—Per Press Association.! INVERCARGILL, May 15. In the Supreme Court this morning, 1-efore His Honour Mr Justice Smith and a jury, the hearing was continued of the case in which the Southland Farmers’ Cash Supply Service sued Ronald Sim, farmer, of Otahuiti, for -U2;:0(> damages for loss of business allegedly due to the remarks by defendant at a meeting of the Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union } that “the whole of the organisation was a swindle.” After counsel had addressed the jury, his Honour said that in the case brought against tlit newspapers, tlie Judge had awarded £450 damages against each paper, and this amount must be taken into account, although the defendant’s words were a separate cause of action against himself. The jury must consider what were the words actually used. The defendant was entitled to tlie consideration of the words he used in conjunction with the words complained of. These additional words had been sot out in the statement of defence. The onus was not on the jury to decide on the exact words which were used, nor need they be concerned about the fact that the- defendant purported to have repeated what someone else had said. The -repetition- of a slander did not excuse the man who repeated it. He was bound to direct that, if the jury found that the words ‘‘the whole organisation was a swindle,” had actually been used, they were capable of 'being defamatory. The question of malice did not arise, nor was there reasonable evidence of defendant being connected with any other company. There was no evidence of malice to justify his leaving that aspect of the case to the jury. If it was found by the jury that tlie words had been used, they were actionable, by themselves, for damages, and some damages must be awarded, although the damage,did not amount to much. If the jury, found that the defendant deliberately intended his words to he published, or authorised this, then lie was' personally .Tiaiblo,< although tho amount' awarded in the previous case might be. taken into j consideration. )In conjunction. .wish- the, reporter’s statement that tliyre was nothing in Sim’s demeajiqvir to indicate that. • lie iwanted the statement published, thfcro must lie considered-; the fact that if Sim had not wanted his statement repeated, would he not. have suggested going into committee? If the jury concluded that the statement was intended to be repeated in the press, they would arrive at the total sum for the damage suffered, ‘and would deduct from it the £9OO damages against the newspapers. If they came to the conclusion that it was intended,' not for publication in the press, but only for repetition by those present only, they would arrive at a sum for damages from which nothing woiild be deducted —necessarily a smaller amount, owing to the small number of those present.

His Honour concluded by placing six questions ibefore the jury, and they were answered as, follows:

(1) Did the defendant use the words complained of in the claim, or words to the same effect?—No.

(2) Did the defendant use the words set out in Paragraph 'Four of the statement of defence, or words to the same effect?—Yes.

(3) If defendant used such words as those, either in. the statement of claim or in the statement of dofence ) are said words defamatory of plaintifi in respect of its trade or business?—Yes. (4) Did defendant authorise a repetition of the said words, or intend that the said words should be published in tlie newspapers ?—No.

(5) Did the defendant authorise the repetition of the said woyds, or in tend that the said words should be repeated, to other parties by othei members of the Executive present when they were used?—No. (6) What damages is the plaintiff entitled tol—Twenty-five pounds. Mr Macalister, counsel for defendant, gave notice of motion for judgment for defendant on the ground of privilege.