‘Sunday Miracle’ copy was ‘below standard’

Press, 25 October 1985, Page 9

‘Sunday Miracle’ copy was ‘below standard’

There had been no complaint about the printing quality of the “Sunday Miracle" until after the proprietor had fallen into arrears and was being pressed for payment, Mr T. M. Gresson told Mr Justice Barker in the High Court yesterday. Mr Gresson was opening his case for the Timaru Herald Company, Ltd, which claims $24,345 from David lan Henderson, a director, of Christchurch, who owned the business responsible for the publication of the shortlived tabloid newspaper, which was distributed free in Christchurch and the surrounding area on Sunday momings. The hearing of a counterclaim by Mr Henderson for $47,720 special and $20,000 general damages for the loss of advertising and goodwill because of the alleged poor printing quality of the newspaper by the “Timaru Herald” was completed yesterday. Messrs Gresson and N. J. Scott appear for the Timaru Herald company and Messrs J. F. Burn and J. S. Halls for Mr Henderson. Mr Gresson said that the liability and damages issues

were largely factual. It had already been accepted by the production manager of the “Miracle,” Thomas Anthony Mitchell, that a number of printing defects, especially those in the first edition of the “Miracle,” were the result of the poor Quality of the camera-ready copy which was supplied to make the plates from which the newspaper was printed. Evidence would be given by witnesses that the material supplied by the staff of the “Miracle” was below standard and that at times the “Timaru Herald” staff had to make fresh bromides to improve the contrast.

The problem was compounded by the late arrival of copy which left insufficient time to remedy any defects in the platemaking process. An independent expert witness, Ivan George Sinclair, a senior photo-en-graver at “The Press,” would give evidence that he had examined the negatives made by the “Timaru Herald” and would say that they had not been overexposed as was claimed by Mr Henderson and that the copy from which they were

made was not of the required standard for good reproduction. The “Timaru Herald” had continual difficulty in obtaining payment in advance for the printing which was a term of the contract The inference could be drawn that the allegations about faulty printing were merely a ploy to avoid payment. It was only when Mr Henderson tried to get credit and was refused but still got into arrears that the printing was transferred to the “Otago Daily Times” and that he raised the question of the quality of the printing. It was admitted by the “Timaru Herald” that there were some defects such as “roller bounce” which related only to editorial copy but it was still perfectly readable and did not amount to a breach of the contract, Mr Gresson said.

Evidence would be given by Mr J. A. B. Boulton, production manager of the “Timaru Herald,” that he drew Mr Mitchell’s attention to the inferior standard of the camera-ready copy a number of times and even wrote to him saying that it

was not of an acceptable quality. No accounts had been presented in support of the allegation of the loss of money and business, nor was there any direct or indirect evidence of advertisers failing to take space because of the printing quality. It was the Timaru Herald company’s case that Mr Henderson had failed to mitigate his losses and that that part of his claim was sadly lacking specific detail.

An advertising expert would say that the “Miracle” had a very flexible system of charging for advertising and that in cases where a 100 per cent rebate was given that it was excessive.

“The ‘Timaru Herald’ should not be asked to indemnify the errors of judgment and incompetence of the employees of the ‘Miracle’,” said Mr Gresson. The hearing of evidence will not be completed today as Mr Justice Barker has to return to Auckland this afternoon. The case was set down for a day and a half but it will take more than double that time.