SPRAGG V. EDGECUMBE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 142, 17 June 1899, Page 2

SPRAGG V. EDGECUMBE.

CLAIM FOR £200 DAMAGES

At the Supreme Court Civil sittings yesterday afternoon, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a jury of fout (Mr E. W. Alison foreman), Wesley Spragg brought a suit for £200 damages against George Edgecumbe, proprietor of the Waikato 'Argus,' for alleged libel.

Mr Tlieo. Cooper appeared for plaintiff, instructed by Mr A. Hanna; Mr H. Campbell conducted the defence, under instructions from Mr Swarbrick. d . STATEMENT OF CLAIM. " In hia statement of claim, plaintiff set- forth that he was, and hift.l for some years past, carried on business as a butter manufacturer, under the style of 'The New Zealand Dairy Association.' He purchased every year large quantities of milk from farmers and others throughout the Auckland district, paying for the same at certain agreed rates in accordance with the quantity of butter-fat therein, as shown by the 'Babcock' tester. On or about the 13th of October last the plaintiff issued a circular to milk suppliers stating the results of the mill?= testing during the past season, and that these tests, checked by the amount of butter actually made in plaintiff's factories, showed that 1,4.5 lbs more butter fat had been paid for than was received. The circular also stated that all the original returns of the testing officer and all other office records bearing upon this matter were at the disposal of milk suppliers. On the 10th of January, 1899, the defend-; ant published a letter in the 'Waikato Argus' which 'imputed to the plaintiff in relation to his business and to his dealings therein with milk suppliers that he had, with intent to deceive tho said suppliers, falsely stated the quantity of butter realised from the milkpurchased by him during the last season; that he had with such intent suppress, ed the truth, and dealt with the question of the percentage realised in an improper and dishonest way.' The defendant in his statement of defence denied that he, by the words of the letter published by him imputed to the plaiDtiflf that he (the latter) had, with intent to deceive the milk suppliers, falsely stated the quantity of butter realised from the milk purchased by him during the last season. He also claimed that the words did not mean what plaintiff alleged they did, and were incapable of any such meaning, and that in so far as the words consisted of allegations of facts they were true in substance and in fact. In so far as they consisted, of expressions of opinion, they were fair comments, made in good faith and without malice upon the said facts, which were matters of public interest. L

MR SPRAGG'S EVIDENCE. Wesley Spragg in the course of his evidence yesterday afternoon said: I conduct the N.Z. Dairy Association During- part of last year I was in England. 1 have a number of creameries in the Waikato district. My business consists of purchasing milk from the producers and turning it into butter. 1 purchase the milk upon what is known as the Babock test. On October 13, 1898, 1 issued a circular to the milk .suppliers. The ! statements contained in it were quite true. Twenty-five lbs. of milk of 3.G quality ought to make lib of butter. This is the result of my experience and ihe common knowledge of New Zealand as well. Upon this basis there was a shortage of 1415 lbs. of butter on last season's return. On November 20 I called a meeting at Hamilton. The defendant was present. It was a meeting of milk suppliers to which 1 invited Mr Edgecumbe, and drove him down myself. I made a statement at the meeting in reply to a question asked by Captain Runciman, one of the suppliers. I said that the calculations to which I had referred in the circular sent to suppliers, was that 25 lbs. weight of 3.6 quality milk was required to make lib. of commercial butter. I answered all other questions that were asked for the sake of obtaining explanations upon the subject, Mr Edgecumbe being present the whole of the time. On the 10th January, 1899, a letter appeared in the Waikato 'Argus,' signed 'Looker On.' I read the letter, and in my opinion reflections were distinctly cast on my character. I am charged with drawing a red herring across the scent, throwing dust into the eyes of the suppliers, and making a statement which was a 'suppression of the, truth,' which never was and never can be an honest way of dealing with any question. Iv my opinion this letter is distinct^ calculated to injure me in my business by causing some people to believe tha.t I had been treating them dishonestly. Since this letter was published there has been an alteration in my business to my detriment. My business has fallen off, and I ascribe same to the publication of this letter and similar verbal statements which resulted from this letter. I probably sent a copy of the circular to the editor of the 'Waikato Argus,' contending that it should be used as the editor thought fit. On the 2nd November, 1898, there is a report of an interview with myself in the 'N.Z. Herald.' I. is a statement of my side of the case. I referred to certain tests (report of tests read). The main issue referred to by 'Looker On' was that T had falsely stated the amount of butter received. There is a larger weight of commercial butter received than the weight of butter fat. The cause of the overrun is the addition of matter to the butter fat. This consists of salt, curd i and water. The overrun in the butter made by my association is probably about 15 or 16 per cent. I paid for milk in proportion to its richness in butter fat as per Babcock test. My circular states correctly the full j amount of butter obtained from the butter fat paid for from all sources. There was an invitation to milk suppliers to examine all my records and books. I might have said there was an overrun of from 10 to 16 per cent., but it was not needed. I say my circular was perfectly clear to anyone who understood the business. I object to a statement in the 'Dairyman' as to the quantity of fat paid for from all sources. I do not say that 1 paid for 1415 lbs. more of butter fat than I made of commercial butter. I gave ass much direct information us was needed. My communication was addressed to milk suppliers, |;eople who understood the business. I made no attempt to explain to milk suppliers about the 'overrun.' It is not fair to say there was any suppression re the overrun

owing to the way in which it is con- ' nected. The milk suppliers to whom the circular was addressed resided all over the Waikato. 1 have 29 factories altogether. I had about 700 suppliers about the time the article was published. The publication of the com- | parative tests created great excite- : ment among the milk suppliers in Te Awamutu, probably throughout the j Waikato. There has been some dis- ! cussion as to the reading of the Babcock tester. Mr Spragg was cross-examined by Mr Campbell as to the methods of [ testing milk, with a view to showing I that i_ie statements in the letter were i fair comment. James S. Bond, printer, of Hamilton, ; and John H. Mandeno, farmer, of Te Awamutu, were examined. The court j then adjourned till to-day. !