LIBEL ALLEGED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 126, 30 May 1944, Page 6

LIBEL ALLEGED

BY RUBBER COMPANY

AUCKLAND JOURNAL SUED

"Believe it or not, New Zealand | uses 250,000 pairs of gumboots a | year," said Mr. North when opening a Supreme Court case before Mr. | Justice Callan and a jury in which Marathon Rubber Footwear, Limited, : of Christchurch, claimed from Geddis and Blomfield, Limited, of Auckland > (Mr. H. P. Richmond), the sum of £1000 damages in respect to an alleged libel. Plaintiff claimed that the libel was contained in the following article printed in the weekly newspaper New Zealand Observer in August, 1943:— "While a southern enterprise under the patronage of the Department of Industries and Commerce is pushing ahead at top speed with arrangements for the manufacture of gumboots, an announcement comes from Amcrica that by October the U.S. production of synthetic rubber will have reached 750,000 tons per annum. This approximates to the pre-war consumption of rubber in the States for all purposes. It also means that American rubber boots will shortly become freely available and (please mark this particularly) that a first-class political ramp will be engineered for the purpose of excluding from the New Zealand market a tested and efficient imported article while users of rubber boots will be compelled to buy a highly priced local article of almost certainly inferior quality. The closer the approach of a supply from outside sources the more furious becomes the pace to get the local article on the market before it arrives." Company Formed in 1939 It would be shown, said counsel, that the plaintiff company, formed in 1939 to make tennis and gymnasium shoes, was licensed, like all other footwear makers. The country was crying out for gumboots and, foreseeing a scarcity in imports, the , managing director in 1941 applied for and was granted a license to make gumboots. He obtained the machinery and an expert in Canada i without delay, but through Japan 1 coming into the war the delivery of the machinery was delayed till December, 1942, and the arrival of the expert till March, 1943. Meantime, two other companies, Rubber Distributors, Limited, Wel- ; lington, and Barnett Glass Company, Christchurch, were granted licenses to make gumboots. Plaintiff company appealed to Sir Francis Frazer on economic grounds, and the Barnett Glass Company license was withdrawn. The Rubber Distributors license was not disturbed, but, probably on account of import difficulties, the firm had not gone into production of gumboots. Plaintiff company was pushing on with its factory and production arrangements when, at the crucial moment, in August, 1943, the article complained of was published in the Observer. Opportunity to Retract Counsel said the defendant company was written to and given the opportunity to publish an apology in several of the leading papers in the Dominion and pay legal costs. In reply the defendant denied that the article referred to the Marathon Company and that there was any , libel. Mr. North emphasised that the ' Marathon Company was the only < company in New Zealand immedi- ' ately preparing to make gumboots and it was a "southern enterprise." < Consequently it could be the only < firm meant by the article. He argued - that the word "patronage" used in ] conjunction with the words "political 1 ramp" carried a discreditable signi- j ficance. Further, said Mr. North, evidence ] would be led as to the comparative ( effects of using synthetic rubber and t raw rubber in making gumboots, indicating that the local article, made from raw rubber, was not of inferior quality. It would also I appear that the American production t of synthetic rubber on the present 1 world quota could not permit of < American rubber boots being freely 3 imported into New Zealand by r October, so that the suggestion of < "furious production" locally to anti- 1 cipate such import was wrongly I based and-sinister. - c Evidence on the lines indicated 3 was given by George Waldemar c Skellerup, managing director of the 1 plaintiff company. I Witness sa:J the Marathon Com- t i pany's production now was 466 pairs - of gumboots daily. Cross-examined, \ he said he was managing director of c the Para Rubber Company, and was interested in five other rubber com- * panies. Over half the shares were ® held by members of the Skellerup d family. To complete his intended , output of 200,000 pairs of gumboots £ a year would take 200 tons of virgin [ rubber. When that supply was gone the firm could do with the rubber i available. Synthetic rubber for gumboots was a new thing. tj The Industrial Efficiency Act made it harder for competitors to spring up against those already in the trade, he said. Having got the gumboot license, the plaintiff company opposed applications by two other companies, but withdrew the c< appeal against one of them. The a Marathon Company proposed to r< make gumboots for the whole of o New Zealand. Mr. Rocke O'Shea, a w director, said witness, lived in Wei- tl lington. He was not an expert in h rubber, but was useful in seeing the Ministry of Supply for import " licenses. The dominating factor was the urgency of the need.

(Proceeding.)