SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 565, 1 December 1915, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. ALLEGED DEFECTIVE FLOUR. BAKERS' BUSINESS SUFFERS. The hearing of a claim for damages, made by Edward Charles Cook and Andrew McKenzie, trading as Cook and McKenzie, bakers, of St. Albans, against Wood Bros., Ltd., millers, of Christehurch, was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning. His Honour Mr Justice Denniston presided. Mr A. F. Wright appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs Gresson and Neave for the defendants. A special jury was empanelled, Mr J. H. Scager being chosen foreman. The claim was for £332 1(V- damages, in,respect of certain flour supplied by defendants to the plaintiffs, which was alleged to be of an unmerchantable character. In outlining the case for the plaintiffs, Mr Wright said that the claim, as originally made, was for £532 10/-, the firm of Moir and Co., millers, being also joined as defendants. Moir and Co. had since settled the claim against them by payment of the sum of £2OO. The claim had therefore been reduced to £332 10/- against Wood Bros. On March* 25 last, the plaintiffs bought 20 sacks of flour from W T ood Bros., at a cost of £35. The defendants knew that the flour was to.be used for the purpose of bread-making. It was found that the flour was affected with a fungus, known as "white mould," and was not therefore reasonably suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. As a result of the condition of the flour, the bread made from it had a musty flavour. Considerable, quantities of bread had been made by the plaintiffs before they discovered the cause of the trouble, and, as a they lost a number of customers, \and generally suffered considerable damage to their business. The plaintiffs had on hand ten sacks of the defendants' flour, for which they had paid £l7! 10/-. They claimed the return of this sum, and" £315 general damages. | The statement of defence admitted the supply of the flour to the plain- j tiffs, but they denied that it was .afl'ected by fungus, or was unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended. The defendants Were unaware of the* other facts set out in j the statement of claim, and therefore denied them. If there was any mould l in the flour it was not due to any inherent defect, but to the neglect of

the defendants themselves after they received it.

Mr Wright went on to say that the plaintiffs were two young men who had purchased a business in St; . Albans some four years ago. They were thoroughly experienced bakers. Only a few months ago they were awarded a gold medal for bread in a competition open to the whole of New Zealand, and in another class were awarded the second prize, being beaten by only one point. In the middle of February last they began to receive complaints about the mustiness of their bread. At that time they were using flour supplied by Moir and Co., and they had no affected ffour of Wood Bros, in stock. Their output was 1850 four-pound loaves per week, amongst their customers being various~public institutions, such as the McDban Institute and hotels. They worked hard, and their business was increasing. The complaints continued with one short interval until May 7 or 8. By every means in their powder the plaintiff's tried to get at at bottom of the trouble. The last thing they suspected was the flour. They tested every other material they used—yeast, malt, salt, sugar, and potatoes—and changed them, and yet the trouble went on. They even went so far as to change from blue-gum to manuka fire wood. They thoroughly cleansed the bakehouse on several occasions, and the troughs were scoured with quicklime. Fresh water tanks were also obtained. In .March they got a consignment of flour from Wood Bros., on the special recommendation of Mr Peter Wood, which was used in conjunction with flour supplied by M. B. Archer, of Kaiapoi. From the time the use of Woods' flour commenced, the loss of customers became more serious. Woods' flour was then tested, and was found to be affected by white mould. Archer's

flour was free from infection, and was used in the competition in which the plaintiffs won the gold medal for the whole of New Zealand. After the bake-house had been inspected by another baker, the plaintiffs removed to other premises in Linwood for 15 days, during which time their own bake-house was turned inside out, and renovated from end to end. Pracjically all the fittings were burned, with the exception of the troughs, which were subjected to lengthy steaming and 'disinfection with formalin. Dur- ! ing the time they were at the other j bakehouse the plaintiffs used flour made by 11. Archer and Alien, and had no complaint. They returned to their own premises on May 3, and began to get complaints from the first day aiul lost several more customers. They then knew that the fault must lie with some of the flour. He set aside certain of his flours, and kept on chiefly with Australian flour. When he stopped using Woods's flour the complaints ceased. He then had tested flour supplied by Allen, N. B. Archer, Gardner, Moir, and Wood. All the samples were declared free from mould with the exception of Moir's, and one of two samples of Woods's. The condemned sample was from Woods's March supply. Since the source of the trouble had been traced there had been no further complaints, and the plaintiff's business had again began to increase, several of the old customers having since come back. It would probably be contended by the defendants that the flour had been infectcji'by mould while in the plaintifFs/storc, but it was hardly possible that Woods's flour could become infected whilst all other makes escaped. The solution would probably be found from the fact that wheat harvested in New Zealand last year was in many cases sprouted through wet weather, and was liable to produce bad floiir. j Mr Gresson pointed out that in answer to an interrogatory-the de-! fendants had already stated that I the flour complained, of had been milled from Australian wheat.

His Honour said that the plaintiffs were not necessarily bound by the answers to interrogatories. Mr Wright said that the jury would probably find that New Zealand wheat was used along with the Australian.

Mr Gresson: Then you do not accept the answer? Mr Wright: No; we (contend this in denial of the answer.

The plaintiff Cook said that in March, when they were using Moir's flour, Mr Peter Wood, of Wotfd Bros., complained of the quality of their bread, and said that they were not using his flour. He arranged to send tliem some flour made from Australian which he especially recommended. The bread made from this wheat was also complained of. The flour with which he won the competition was a blend of N. B, Archer's, Robinson's, and Martin's. He gave evidence of the several scientific examinations of the flour made by various analysts and doctors.

Cross-examined by Mr Gresson, the witness said that lie did not notice anything wrong with the

flour when he was baking with it. So far as the appearance of the bread was concerned, he could see nothing wrong with it.\ He detected a slight mustiness in the bread himself, but not until after he had received complaints. A baker working amongst floui* and bread would not detect mustiness so soon as customers, especially women. In reply to further questions by Mr Wright, . the witness said that e\ier since he had been in business during the last four years he had had llour in store in the same room as that in which Moir's and Wood's flour was left, and no other flour ever was defective. Dr A. B. Pearson, bacteriologist and pathologist at the Christcliureh Hospital, said that he had received six samples of flour on June 30 last. He was asked if he could find in them any cause for mustiness. He found in two of the samples a variety of moulds known as mucor, and also other moulds. The other moulds occurred to a greater or less extent in all the samples, but, so far as lie knew, tliey would not produce mustiness. Mucor, however, would do so. In reply to his Honour, Mr Wright said that the samples in which mucor was found were those of Wood's and Moir's. The witness, continuing, said that he had examined specimens of dust taken from the plaintiffs' storeroom. He found in them mucor and other moulds. He' had also found mucor in dust taken from the hospital store-room and from his own laboratory. Mucor was a very common air mould. Mr Wright: You might possibly find it in the dust of this courtroom? . Dr Pearson: Very probably. His Honour: You might find anything there. (Laughter). (Proceeding.)