LIBEL ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 9 December 1932, Page 3

LIBEL ACTION

DAIRY ROMANIES AT VARIANCE

JUDGMENT FOB DEFENDANT,

CHRIS TCHURCH Decembei' 8.

Judgment for defendant was given j in 'the Magistrate’s Court yesterday . by Mr. H. P. Lawry, &.M., when deli veri g his i‘e< OrvOd decision ill the base ill which the T&i Taptt Compere tive Dairy Company, Ftd.•, b.a.liied j from the Akaroa Co-operative Better | Factory Co., Ltd., the hum of £IOO, ' as damages for alleged libellous and defamatory statements made in a postcard alleged to have been circulated by tlm Akaroa conß iiny among cream suppliers. The cai-o was heard at Akaroa on October 251 li. The plaintiff company claimed that the published .statements meant, -and were understood to mean, that plaintiff was not acting fairly and honestly with its suppliers, and must be obtaining some unfair advantage from its purchase of butter-fat to the prejudice of the supplier and about which the supplier knew nothing; that there was some sinister motive or practice behind the company’s operations’ which must -act to the detriment of the supplier; that the suppliers to- the plaintiff company were being defrauded. The statements also implied, it wa,s claimed, that the company carried: on. its business by methods which were not. open to examination, and tlrt the plaintiff ..company was one with which farmers and others having butter-fat to sell should not cVI. Tin> plaintiff ecmpiavy had thus been injured ’in .credit -ml reoutation ; hence the claim - f ; r £IOO as cFmares.

Mr A. F. Wright and L. ,J. Herslev appeared for the plawtiT. and Ur C. S. Thonms and Mr C. H. Holmes for the defendant. t

Mr Lawrv held that the words comolained of were net amhivuons. rrr were they capable of defamatory ihp'”’1 „or, and therefore not nc-ttonahK Fe did not consider tlm ouest-ion of privilege raised by the defence, nor that of malice.

THE JUDGMENT. In his judgment Mr La wry stated that defendant admitted, and he .thought rightly so, that if a statement were made- v?,s to the mode in winch a trading company conducted its •business, euch as to lead people of .ordinary seme to the opinion t lv at it conducted .its business in a dishonest, improper, and’inefficient manner, the law was the same as in the case of an individual, and the company could maintain an action for libel or slander without proof of specH damages. But where the words did not reflect on the trading reputation of the comp my no action’ would be maintained, except on proof of special

damaged• Tlie 'alleged li' el consisted of the circulation and .publication of a postcard, the woitos in the card around „ Rich the complaints' were being: “Where" is the nigger in thej wood pile? Bo iiot be ’misled 1” which| followed a reference to prices that' were being oaid lor butter-fat and the retail price' of butter. . F-laintiff was hot named on the postcard, but the allegation was that it- pas plaintiff s Htfekws that it referred ..m . Several questions arose. Had there been pub- , libation? Did the pestpird refer to | Plaintiff? Was it pessary for the | persons to whom the caid was. .publish- - ed to have understood it as referring to plaintiff', or mid this evidence be given by plaintiff- Were the words ambiguous? or were they a sbmg ex-nj pressionP Was it nMsrty tor plaintiff to prove the meaning lU[ words were understood by the defendant, and could plaintiff give evidence of, meaning? Was there any privilege.

QUESTION 0E PUBLICATION " } “I think it clear that in this case ! the sending of the pusteard through the post did amount tO publication of its contents to those through whose hands it passed,’! stated the Magistrate. “There is no evidence from any of those through tt'lioso hands the postcards passed, or to U f 10111 they were addressed, that they or atiy of them understood the contents to refer to plaintiff company. I do not, however, think that such evidence is required. In my opinion, from t! e proven fact that the plaintiff Was the only dairy company in 'Christchurch which was definitely known to be j paying Is a pound for butter-fat at j that time (although other companies ! may later have decided to pay. a similar rate.), and from the other circumstances plaintiff has established that ordinary sensible readers, knowing the plaintiff, would be of the opinion that the ' pegteard referred to it- ■ ■.

“It is, of course, open to defendant to- rebut the p.'e.umptLon of publication. . .. This defence, however, was not attempted. I do not think the words are ambiguous. Where the word’s complained of are in their natural or ordinary meaning not defamatory, or convey no meaning at all until some explanation is given, i.e., in the'us e of slang expressions, P lain ' tiff must- insert in his statement of claim any innuendo laverring the defamatory meaning in which'he allegesthe words Were understood, by those who read or.heard them.

T OSS . ENPEAINED. . )• . . *’ " “At- the Trial plaintiff must not only prove the "puthcatibn of the words or matter coUirl! lined of ; lie mu.t also luv-ve that there were facts known to those persons to whom the words or matter were published which might reasonably'dead them to understood this f word A or matter in the defamatory meaning averred in the innuendo.

No evidence was called to prove this, and I go fiirther and find that the words were not reaisonalny capable of - the meaning ascribed. The explanation was subsequently forthcoming, ..and it was that it was the grocer and not the factory that sustained the loss.

LEANING OF WORDS. “Reverting to the question as to the meaning given to the words or matter used, I have said that no evidence was called to prove the meaning attributed to the words. What I should have said was that the evidence was called to show the meaning attributed to the words by the persons to whom the words.were published. Evidence was given by Mr Agar and Mr Miller as to the meaning they ascribed to the words complained of. They were, however, both director? of plaint-ff company, and there is no evidence that the words complained of were published to them by defendant. In any j COi c »S, being directors, they are in f ac * iv'o plaintiffs, and publication to more ’ s reauired. Further eiiteftv? p Vintiff unde ;- stood the irords.tn mean is inadmissible. The maintains of the suit depends upon what othei * erso ‘ urtderttwvJ them to mean and' what plaintiff understood) them to mean.. If words are :used which retire a irrt'oulcir meaning to make them actionable and all the hearer® or renders’ understood thorn as conveving ft mooning not , 3 ctibnahle except plaintiff I aoprehetid an action could not be maintained, r,s 'the tvovds did not convoy an actual -owning to the hwr--1 ers oi* readers. Tlmre would m sndi {ca»o be no prWication of notable I words to aUV persons. Plaintiff umW- | iptondins them ?s conveying an ac ’on- | able words to anv persons Plni"* tiff clone so underling thorn would h A no a publication than the uttering of standero”« to plaintiff wb'”di were rot 'heard hv eVe. Tn the one o-e 1m o”k won d bpn.r the words: in +he other he would und.ersto.nd fb.-v a, co-rr-irg an actionable meaning. Jn there would be * I’* ; f publication of sl-iuW «? rds r ' o „irrvd to mo into in the action.’ „ view of the ;t lW Hccnrv to mnsi'W the 'of n-ivile- cud T IV». Judgment , will be given for defendant-