ALLEGED LIBEL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 1 May 1928, Page 9

ALLEGED LIBEL

CASE AT ELTHAM. QUALITY OF RENNET. COMPANY MANAGER’S CLAIMS. The hearing of a civil action in which a claim for damages for statements alleged to be libellous was commenced! at the Magistrate’’..- Court, at Elehtm today. ■ one parties being G. H. P. Fitzgerald, .plaintiff, and. BlundefJ Bros., of the “New Zealand Dairyman,” defendants. The case was heard by Mr R, W. Tate, S.M. The plaintiff, who is manager of the New Zealand Rennet Co., Ltd., rennet manufacturers, Klthani, is claiming £250 damages against the defendants jointly and severaly, as printers and publishers, in respect fo certain statements contained in the issue of “The Dairyman” of February 20, 1928, alleging; inferiority of the-standard in the company’s product in comparison with ih.at produced by overseas competitors, and a. want of scientific knowledge and facilities by the plaintiff. Mr A. Crystal appeared for the. plaintiff and Mr F. C. Spratt, of Wellington, tor the joint defendants. •Costs on an application for change of venue "wore applied for by Mr C’hrysital, and his Worship reserved his decision on. this point;

In hits opening address, Mir Crystal quoted the'following passage as appearing in the columns of the Januairy issue of the ‘‘Dairyman,” printed by Blundell Bros., in a-page entitled “Faic--1 tory Managers’ and Assistants’ Page”: Ohee.semnkers . . • . will you ex-

press* an opinion regarding locally manufactured and imported rennets relative to equality and cost. Is the higher duty on foreign rennet justified ?” and •minted out that on its face value this promotion of' ; a discussion appeared to he quite’innocent, but when it was brought to mind that there was an New Zealand only one company manufacturing rennet—the New Zealand! Co-opera-tive Rennet Company, and the manufacture of such rennet was solely in the bands of plaintiff, G. H. P. Fitzgerald, it would be- seen that .an attempt was made to compare the New Zealand! product. manufactured by only one company as against .the whole of the imported rennets manufactured by about twenty companies. It' was equally aibvieus that .any harmful statements against the New Zealand product could reflect, onlv on the New Zealand Co-op-erative CO. and its manager and manufacturer; Mr Fitzgerald took over the management of the factory four years ago, when the factory output was 3950 gallons. For this .season the output totalled about 23,000 • gallons, being nearly two-thirds of tlto total rennet used in the manufacture* of cheese in New Zealand, from which it might be adduced that the local rennet was making great strides at the expense* of foreign competitors, in consequence*. of which, plaintiff claimed, the foregoing ■queries were inspired. From the time Mr Fitzgerald took over the manufacture of rennet, the average grade of New Zealand cheese ihact .steadily increased, showing that he was capable of turning but a rennet which was being used in increasing quantities each year. At the same time the quality of the chops© manufactured in New Zealand was showing a commensurate improve.raent. 1 Plaintiff had no quarrel with ontributors to the “Factory Managers’ Page,” who were bona, fide' eiheesev makers, but took exception to a published letter by a contributor who called himself “Scientific.” in which, he stated “that we have .still a great deal to earn,” indicating that the only remnpt maniu.faot-urer in New Zealand must •have, a great deal to learn be forte ho -onld attain the accuracy and uniformity which was regarded ats a matter of course by the overseas competitors. This was an .assertion of fact made by a. man admittedly not interested in the rnde and carried a. twoffold reflection. Tt was claimed that damaging statements had been made, as to Mr Fitzgerald’s capabilities, which were* calculated to affect his engagement. It was obvious that if .these statements were believed bv his directors he would .lose his position. To avoid this, contingency he had, since these statements appeared, placed his resignation in the hands of ’ his directors, pending decision in this case There could be no- loss greater to a man than the loss of his .reputation as a capable man at his profession Counsel proposed to call evidence to mow that the users of rennet manufactured bv Mr Fitzgerald were, perfectly satisfied, that the grading figures px the users were well above ‘the average, and that market reports showed no deterioration in tin? keeping qualities of. Cheese made with the* New Zealand rennet. The first witness called was John Leonard Taylor, manager of the Lowr;t,rth dairv factory.