SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 566, 2 December 1915, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

ALLEGED DEFECTIVE' FLOUR.

BAKERS SUE MILLERS.

Hearing of the case of Cook and McKenzie, bakers, of Clissold Street, St» Albans, v. Wood Bros., Ltd., flourmillers, of Christchurch, was continued in the Supreme Court after The Sun went to press yesterday afternoon. His Honour Mr Justice Denniston presided. Mr A. F. Wright appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs Gresson and Neave for the defendants.

The claim was for £332 10/-, as damages for loss of business caused by the supply -by the defendants of defective flour, which resulted in a falling-off of the quality of the plaintiffs' bread. It was alleged that certain flour supplied by Wood Bros, was -affected by .mucor (white mould) i which gave rise to mustiness in the bread. Dr Pearson said that the presence of mucor in the dust of the storeroom would not-necessarily contaminate the flour stored there. He displayed sealed examples of _ several moulds developed from Moir's and Wood's flour, and from other flours. Only Moir's and Wood's showed mucor. He got similar results from specimens taken on three separate occasions. .

Dr Pearson said, further, that he had examined loaves made from the various flours in question, and found no mucor. He therefore concluded that the mould had been killed in the process of baking. The question as to whether the remains of moulds after baking would affect the bread was a question for a chemist, not not, for a bacteriologist/ A. Ml Wright, analytical chemist, gave evidence of experiments which, he said*proved that,mucor in flour caused mustiness in bread.

Lewis P. Ebert, master baker, said that :lie had Examined the plaintiff's' bakehouse at the time complaints were being made regarding their bread, and found it perfectly clean. Acting on his advice, they quicklimed their troughs, but this resulted in no improvement in the bread. ; -.Sidney R. Cowley, manager of the E)own Yeast Company, said that he Examined the plaintiffs' bakehouse, arid found it rather above the average of New Zealand bakehouses. He supervised the thorofighr cleansing of the establishment, but even after that the bread was musty.

At this stage saiiiple loaves made f the flour complained .of were handed to the jury for inspection as to mustiness. ; „

At 5.5 p.m. the Court adjourned until this morning. t. . ; . . ' . TO PROCEEDINGS.

Court /relskimed this morning, Mr Wright called Charles H. Gilby, 'accountant, who said that he. had formerly been a customer of the plaintiffs. In May he ceased to'-take their-bread/ as it was sour and ihusty. The smell of the bread was similar to that of th£ loaf produced in Court, which had been baked, two days- ago from Wood's flour, 4aken from the plaintiffs' stdre; The bread was so bad that it jaffected his health. : Miss Ethel M. Gibson gave evidence of the mustiness of the plaintiffs' bread, and the necessity of her jgetting her bread elsewhere. She had since gone hack to the plaintiffs, and now found their bread quite satisfactory. Similar evidence was given by Joseph Baxter, estate agent. Edward Harrison, storekeeper, of St. Albans, said that he used to retail the plaintiffs' bread, selling i about 80 loaves per week. His customers were more than satisfied with the bread, until about February, when he began to receive complaints of mustiness, and his trade fell away so badly that some days he did not sell a single loaf. Arthur Hebden, storekeeper, Springfield Road, gave similar evidence.

Richard S. Ward, traveller for Robertson and Co., millers, Ashburton, said that he had been in hundreds of bakehouses in all parts of New Zealand. The plaintiffs' bakehouse was very clean. At tlie time of plaintiffs' trouble there were similar complaints of mustiness in various places. In reply to Mr Gresson, the witness said that some of the cases of complaints were in Christchurch. Three or four came under his own personal notice. He wrote down the names of several firms who had experienced similar trouble. ' Walter Bryant, journeyman baker, formerly employed by Cook and McKenzie, said that the plaintiffs' bakehouse was the cleanest he had ever worked in. It was a credit to them.

Claude Ferrier, Government grain grader at Lyttelton, said that he handled three-quarters of the grain that passed through Lyttelton. The wheat season of 1913-14 was a bad season, there being a large proportion of rejects, from sweaty to very damp. Sweaty wheat, due to its being harvested before reaching maturity,\ would, if stored under unfavourable conditions, become musty, and in bad cases Would show white or green mould. Damp wheat was caused by threshing from the stook in wet weather. This wheat was rarely suitable for milling, although in some cases it could be re-conditioned.

In reply to Mr Gresson, the witness said that wheat coming into the Dominion from other countries was not graded at New Zealand ports. It might be graded at the mills.

A considerable amount of additional evidence was called, With regard to the cleanliness of the plaintiffs' premises, and to the complaints of customers. A carter formerly employed by the plaintiffs stated that

during the time of the trouble he lost 86 out of the 260 customers on his round.

| Andrew McKenzie, one of the plaintiffs, said that he had charge of the delivery part of the business. The .averarji output in December was 2100 41b loaves per week, which in February had dropped to 1850, owing to the high price of bread and the school holidays. The first comj plaints were received in February 15, and from then on the demand for ! their % loaves dropped by 40 to 80 per week, until on April 10, it had fallen to 1172. On the round he Served himself he lost 69 customers. Tfyey had since regained 30 customers out tof the 155 they had lost. Although they had obtained a good number of new customers, their average weekly output was still 500 loaves below ■what it was in February. On that basis they were losing £4 3/4 per week. If it were not for the new customers the loss would be at least £5.. In addition to this the firm had suffered through the loss of reputation.: THE DEFENDANTS' CASE. Opening the case for the defen-j darits, Mr Neave said that the defence was that the flour supplied by them to the plaintiffs was of good quality, and fit for its purpose of j making saleable bread. If it wasj hot, it had been contaminated while i in the plaintiffs' possession. Careful records had been kept by the defendants, whereby they could trace every sack of the flour made at the same tiine as that forming the subject of the plaintiffs" complaint. This flour was made from Australian wheat imported by the New Zealand Government. Witnesses would be produced to account for all the flour liiilled from this wheat, and these witnesses would state that, with the exception of the plaintiffs, not a single customer had any complaint' to make. None of the wheat used in the making of this flour was ever taken out of the sacks until it was put into the feeder of the first machine, the cleaner. Every sack of wheat coudl easily be traced, as a number was sewn into it as soon as it was filled, and a complete record was kept of it. An outstanding feature of the defendants' case was that there had been trouble in the plaintiffs' bakehouse before the defendants' delivery of March 25 was made. It was this delivery which was complained of. As a matter of fact, Mr Peter Wood had supplied the flour in order to help the defendants' over their trouble. The lbft in which the plaintiffs kept their flour was quite an unsuitable place. It was not an unusual thing for flour to become contaminated in J store.

Frederick R. Corson, managing clerk of Wood Bros., Ltd., said that towards the end of last year the defendants lent some floUr to the New Zealand Government. In January they began to run short, and asked the Government to return the flour it had borrowed. The Government had no flour, but returned about 3000 bags of Australian wheat. It became necessary to have a irial run to see how much flour this wheat Would produce. The trial run was made On February 11; 25, and 26. On the first day the mill turned out ;203 sacks of ; 1801b each, all of which jjwere sold to Aulsebrook arid Co. On February 25 and 26 the output iwas 167 -and 169 sacks of 2001b respectively. Every sack of flour made in the mill was numbered and ; checked, so that it could be ascertained to within a quarter of an hour when it was made. The numbers rendered to them by the plainshowed that the flour they got was made on February 26, the last day of the Government test. They were made at different hours on that day. They were able to trace every sack milled on the three days mentioned, because, in a manner of speaking, the Government test had put a ring fence round it. In ordinary circumstances they would not have been able to trace it without getting the sack numbers. All the flour milled on these days was from Australian wheat. They had received complaints from no purchaser of the flour except the plaintiffs. (Proceeding).