ALLEGED LIBEL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 2 May 1928, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL.

CASE AGAINST THE “DAIRYMAX.” JUDGMENT RESERVED. Hearing of the action brought by G. H. P. Fitzegrald for £250 damages against the “Dairyman” newspaper proprietary and Messrs. Blundell Bros, was resumed at the Eltham Magistrate’s Court after the luncheon hour yesterday. Mr. Chrystal had barely opened the examination of the Low garth factory manager when Mr. Spratt interrupted to say that there was no intention of reflecting on Mr. Fitzgerald’s ability; his clients admitted that Mr. Fitzgerald was a competent rennet- maker. He was not prepared to say the: statements in “Scientific’®” article were untrue.

The Magistrate asked if any time could he -saved by the- parties' conferring and getting at the facts. Mr. Spratt said the defence claimed that Mr. Fitzgerald acquiesced in what' was published and that the article, was only fair comment on matters known to readers of the “Dairyman.”

Mr. Chrystal claimed that the defence should admit the falsity of the statements made. - On Mr. Chrystal ’s suggestion examination of the witness was continued.

Mr. Taylor deposed to the exclusive use of New Zealand rennet, at the Lowgarth factory for four yeans past, during which time he .had been highly successful as an exhibitor of cheese at various shows, and was quite satisfied with the rennet used in its manufacture. His average grading last year was 97.597 per cent, including 97 per cent of finest and 3 per cent first grade. He made no second grade at all last year and none, so far, this year. The selling price, of his factory product on the Home market was abovei the average. He subscribed to the “New Zealand Dairyman,” and lead the article complained of. He understood it to mean that Mr. Fitzgerald had a- lot to learn before he could compete with foreign manufacturers.

An adjournment of the court was here made with the object of giving counsel an oppoi'tunity of arriving at an agreement. On resumption no . reference was 'made to the result of the conference, and the taking of evidence was proceeded with. Percy Oliver Veale, dairy research chemist, of Hawera, was called, and gave expert evidence of the results of his examination, under instructions, of 12 samples of New Zealand and foreign rennet, which showed that the New Zealand product was uniformly of as good quality a.s the foreign article. The samples examined were, collected at random and without notice, and were, in each case, drawn from the kegs actually in use at the dairy factories visited. He infered that the word “we” in. the published matter “we have still a great deal to learn” referred to Air. Fitzgerald as the only manufacturer of rennet in New Zealand.

Under cross-examination by Air. Spratt, witness said portions of the article to which objection was taken might have referred to the company’s facilities for the manufacture of rennet at the time the article was' written. Though it could he made highly technical, the manufacture of rennet was really a simple process. The inference he drew from the article was that Air. Fitzgerald, as manufacturer, had a great deal to learn. To Air. Chrvstal: Witness’s impression was that the writer of the article drew a comparison between New Zealand and foreign-made rennets, and in that connection made the pronouncement that- New Zealand manufacturers of rennet failed to produce as good an article as did foreign makers.

Hector Charles Johnson, agricultural science master at the Stratford High School, deposed to having read the article complained of, which lie concluded had a direct reference to the inability of New Zealand, manufacturers to produce rennet of standard purity and quality. Personally, he had. used New Zealand rennet for demonstration purposes in. his* classes, end found it bo. he of uniform strength and quality. To Air Soratt: Until his attention had lieon specially drawn to the article, he •’ad not fully realised its nature, although he recognised its damaging efon the rennet manufactured bv Fitzgerald. He took it that the word ‘‘we” referred to the manufacturer — not the company by whom hei was em-

ployed. The “Dairyman” was recognised as a technical journal, and its utterances carried . weight with its readers.

Gerald Henry Patterson Fitzgerald, manager of and sole manufacturer of rennet for the New Zealand Co-opera-r, ive Rennet Company, also a shareholder and a director of the company, said he was employed at a yearly salary, plus a share in the annual profits. Prior to taking up his present position, he had for 20 years practised his profession as a duly qualified chemist. As a matter of .scientific interest, he had studied the manufacture of rennet and as far back as 1913 had. manufactured it in small experimental quantities. When he took ovor_ the management of the company’s business the annual output was 3900 gallons, which had increased from 5900 gallons at the end of his first year to. 19,000 gallons last* season. The estimate of this season’s production was 22,000 gallons. All this rennet uva® carefully and ccientifica’lv tested before leaving the factory, and* was guaranteed to' be of a strength equal to 5 per cent. *a.bov<e the standard strength of Continental! rennet. The variation in strength of the rennet he mado* was not more than 3 per cent. There was no other cheese rennet manufactured in New Zealand other than that made by his company, to whom he was solely responsible as manufacturer of the product. Hi® engagement with the company would terminate during this year, and if the statements made in the “Dairyman” were believed, he would not secure a. fresh agreement. To. Air Soratt: Witness was aware * hat the “Dairyman’,’ has a with circulation in the cheese-making community. He considered that the paper was preindiced in favour of its advertisers to the detriment of non-advertisers. Considerable heated “sparring”- ensued between witness and the examining counsel in .reference to. lengthy correspondence between witness and the defendant newspaper management, during -which the witness strongly objected to Air Soratt stamping- his foot- at him. Air Soratt said he did not prepose to call a.nv evidence, and suggested that Mr Chrvstal should submit to his Worship and himself a written statement of rd a Inti if’=■ case, to which he (Af 1 * c.rypttj could reply in writing. Should Mr Chrvstal desire, Iv* had the right +o fivrthor re-olv to any new point o to i d. TUs, nrccediure was agreed to The Afacdstrn.to announced bin in leu. +inn to deliver judgment -at the t;ev+ 'Vv+rnuht'lv -'slitting of the Court at Viliam.