Defendant Denies He Held Grudge

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30289, 15 November 1963, Page 16

Defendant Denies He Held Grudge

(Neiv Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 14. Allen Edward Monaghan, a civil servant, denied in the Supreme Court today that he held any grudge against Turnbull and Jones, Ltd., or any of its directors. The company is suing the Consumer Council and Monaghan, as editor of the council’s magazine, “Consumer,” for libel, claiming damages of £16,500. It is alleged the libel occurred in March, 1962, in an article reporting on four heaters manufactured by Turnbull and Jones, Ltd.

The hearing, in its fourth day, is before Mr Justice McGregor and a special jury. Mr R. E. Harding, with him Mr B. R. Boon, appears for the plaintiff company, and Mr G. P. Barton, with him Mr R. T. Feist, for the defendants.

James WiUiam Gideon Davidson, liaison officer in the Consumer Service, said it was his practice, after results of tests had been published. to visit retail shops to examine the articles that had to be tested.

In a Tauranga shop he examined a Blue Seal fan convector heater, square type, and discovered this had the same defect as that discovered in the fan convector tested—namely that the grid at the back of the heater, with slight pressure, could be pressed against the exposed terminals of the thermal cut out. On a later visit to Tauranga he discovered a heater on which the grid was firmly fixed, but in a second shop he found one with the fault he had previously noticed and purchased this heater. He identified it among a row of heaters in the Court. Alan Edward Monaghan said he was now an executive officer in the Department of Industries and Commerce, but from February, 1961, to October, 1962, he was executive officer at Consumer Service. His function was to carry out directions given by the council. The staff were under his direction and control and he had responsibility for the production of the magazine "Consumer.”’ Laboratory Tests

Questioned about the drafting of the reports on electric heaters. Monaghan said they had two reports, the first from the Dominion Physical Laboratory, and, as a result of discussion, the laboratory undertook to carry out the tests of electric heaters. When the results of the tests were received, an initial draft was prepared by Mr Harlen and then he, Monaghan, prepared the final draft for the printer. His main purpose in redrafting was to see it was in fair literary form, to see it gave a fair account of the test and accorded with the policy of the Consumer Service. Monaghan said the decisions to undertake testing the heaters was made in Miay, 1961. Three alternative types of test were placed before the testing committee, the first being that selected samples of particular types of heaters should be tested so they could assses comparative efficiency of various types of heaters. Mr Harlem kept in touch with the Dominion Physical Laboratory during the tests and as a result a letter was written to the Standards Institute. Mr Barton: The purpose of that letter was what?—We had noticed that the heaters which we received bearing the Standard mark did not compare with the Standard specification 1240, and considered we should advise the Standards Institute of this. Monaghan said as a result of the institute’s reply he made a comment which subsequently appeared in Consumer 10. “We made this because we considered that although the company was not prepared to discuss our report we did have information which appeared to be in their favour and we considered in fairness we should publish it. “The information was an assurance that the fault would be rectified. That was in reference to cord anchorage being only partially effective.” Cross-examined by Mr Harding regarding the submission of finding to the Electricity Department, Monaghan said the attitude, which tended to be confirmed by a letter, was that the gen-

eral manager of the department was tire only person who was entitled to state that a heater w'as hazardous or potentially hazardous. “Our view expressed by myself and Mr Wood was that if reliable technical evidence showed that a heater was hazardous or potentially hazardous we were entitled to say so whether or not it had been so formerly described by the department.”

Counsel: You don’t regret that the square and round heaters were typified as hazardous?—No. You don't agree it was regrettable that you didn’t say the heaters were outside the regulations?—No. "We had explained fairly carefully the circumstances of goods made before the regulations and that no matter when the heaters were made they were required to be safe under the terms of the 1935 regulations.” said Monaghan. You published the article in March after the 1961 regulations had been in force for three months?—Yes. Nearly four months? —Yes. Monaghan said he knew the plaintiff company alleged a large number of particulars of malice. He had no personal interest in any of the companies which manufactured the heaters tested, and did not have any grudge against Turnbull and Jones, Ltd., or any of its directors. By some of his administrative actions he had made it possible for the plaintiff company to expand its business very substantially. Cross-examined by Mr Harding. Monaghan said when a circular had been sent to Turnbull and Jones by the Consumer Council he thought it had been fair to refrain from saying in it that the company's heaters were going to be called hazardous or potentially hazardous. Referred by Mr Harding to an electric heater manufactured by the plaintiff company, Monaghan said he agreed it could be accepted as a fact that the cord anchorage would not support

the required pull of 151 b because it was not screwed up tight enough. Mr Harding: And we can accept it that the plaintiff company said it would tell the factory to screw up tighter in future?—Yes. Do you say, that your state, ment that the cord anchorage is only partially effective is a fair reflection on that part of the matter?—lt is a statement of fact. Arnold Howard Allan, a further witness for the defendants, said he had an honours degree in electrical civil engineering and other qualifications and had been chief electrical engineer at the Dominion Physical Laboratory, Lower Hutt since Julv, 1961. When the laboratory had made the decision to undertake electrical tests of heaters. he thought he himself had been overseas. The tests in the first instance had been carried out by a Mr Holmes, a technician in the heating transfer section of a laboratory. Tabulated Results Allan said that when the testing for electrical safety was almost complete he had seen a tabulation of results He had discussed with Holmes the interpretation of standard specification No. 1240 as a guide to testing, and they had believed it was the reliable guide for electrical safety requirements. More than 40 heaters were tested in December, 1961. He (Allan) had personally checked some results in respect to some of the points in question, and. personally checked one of the plaintiff’s heaters. Mr Barton: What conclusion did you reach in connexion with want of conformity to standard specification 1240 in relation to these heaters you checked’—l could find no reason to change the facts found by Mr Holmes. Allan said he had recently re-examined some of the plaintiff company's heaters "Apart from the cord ends.” he had confirmed the earlier report on them. The hearing will continue tomorrow.