"BUTTERINE."

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3899, 16 April 1877, Page 2

"BUTTERINE."

In the Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, on the 22nd January, before Lord Young and a jury, an action was tried at the instance of James Smith and Son, soap < manufacturers and oil and tallow merchants, Glasgow, against the proprietor '. and publisher of the Glasgow News, for j £5,000 damages for alleged libel contained i in two articles paVblished concerning the i pursuers. The articles complained of re- i

presented the pursuers as being engaged m a mqan and dishonorable traffic; aiid that under the pretence of manufacturing soap they were carrying on the manufao? ture of spurious or fictitious butter, which tJiey sold as genuine butter. The pursuers held that " butterine," which they • manufactured, was a recognised article of commerce, being designed as a cheap and wholesome Gutter, especially for baking and cooking. It was manufactured front animal, fat and milk: The whole bf th§ butterme .they htaira|actured was sold and invoiced by them as butterine. TJie clefenders stated that such, compounds were not. useful .or appropriate for every pu^ pose, and that the articles were wiltteii and published in the belief that under the existing law the free manufacture of Biich compounds was fraught with danger to the complete protection of .the public against spurious butter. They also stated that the articles were written bonafide and in the interests of the public. After evidence had been pai-tly taken for the prose<sutioii f coxinsel consisted together, and the re= suit .was that they agreed to a verdief pi £250 for the pursuers/ which was stated to cover all, the expenses. Lord Youngs addressing the jury, said that the news; paper, as far as tliey Had ajry/reasbntS believe, had a perfectly laxidable* desire U protect the public against impositio'ii, &i& to close what the writer of the article believed to be the source of the evil. He accordingly thought that the most dignified and proper course to take was for the defenders 1 to acknowledge the error and indemnify the party—Mr SnMj who had suffered from it; On the ptEifc hand, Mr Smith, recognising that "the error was committed in the course of the discharge of what was believed to be a public duty,, although it was, in thfe circumstances, discharged rather hastily and energetically, did not ask any suiti a& damage winch could be regarded as reparation to him for any suffering to his" feelings which lie might have experienced, or any punishment to the newspaper for oversea! of the writer of the article or the editor of the paper. The itxry then returned a verdict for £250 as had been agreed upon.