MAGISTRATE’S COURT Private Information Against Press Company Dismissed

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31783, 13 September 1968, Page 16

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Private Information Against Press Company Dismissed

“I think the advertisement is a perfectly proper one and I don't think any member of the public would suffer because of it or be deceived in any way,” said Mr W. F. Brown, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when dismissing a private information against the Christchurch Press Company, Ltd, laid by Paul Robert Harper Mating, a pensioner. The information, brought under section 9 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1947, alleged that on July 15, the Christchurch Press Company published in “The Press” on page 13 a prominent advertisement measuring 51 n by 6jin headed with the words, “The Christchurch Milk Company, Ltd,” beneath which, in large black type, were included the words “Drink Milk” and “Drink Milk for Health,” such words being calculated or likely to deceive a purchaser so as to cause him to believe that the milk product sold by the milk company for consumption was milk.

Mr J. N. Matson appeared for the Christchurch Press Company and Mr Mating prosecuted his information.

Noel Sidney Harry McCann, general manager of the Christchurch Milk Company, appearing under subpoena, said the advertisement was inserted under his authority. He produced a bottle of milk.

In reply to questions by the Magistrate, Mr Mating said that the contents of the bottle were not milk as they had been pasteurised. Mr Matson said that the information was defective, as the Christchurch Press Company, Ltd, was not an agent or servant of the Christchurch Milk Company.

The Magistrate upheld this submission and said the information must fail on this ground alone. "On a fair reading of the advertisement I hold that it is designed to encourage people to drink milk and is not designed to refer only to the product of the Christchurch Milk Company,” the Magistrate said. “The Informant has failed to establish that there is a case to answer. “Even if the informant did establish that the Milk Company Is encouraging the public to consume tile milk supplied by it, he has failed to establish that the product of the company is not milk. The informant says that milk which has been heated Is not milk. Even from a cursory glance at the regulation it is

clear that pasteurised milk is milk. He has completely failed to convince me that the Christchurch Milk Company product is not milk,” the Magistrate said. After the information had been dismissed, Mr Matson applied for costs against Mr Mating. Mr Mating said that he was a pensioner and that 10 years ago he had been prescribed milk because of his health, but was unable to obtain it except when he went into the country.

Asked If he wished to press his application for costs, Mr Matson said that he did not.

Speaking to Mr Mating, the Magistrate said: “You have come dangerously close to having costs awarded against you. The case as you presented it does not even remotely come within a breach of the regulations. The defendant company has been put to expense in defending your action. Because of your circumstances I will not award costs.”