COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1792, 3 July 1913, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

CLAIM FOR ALLEGED LIBEL. BOOK ENTRIES HE MILK. Certain nonsuit points which had been raised in nu action for alleged, libel at New Plymouth were removed, into the

Court of Appeal for argument, and the 1 Court was engaged, hearing counsel oil i the law yesterday. The. bench was oc- s cupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert < Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr.. Justice : Uenniston, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. • The plaintiff in the action was Arthur Howard Playle, share-milker, of Inahu, 1 near Manaia. The defendant was the Biverdale Co-operative Dairy Factory Co., Ltd., of Riverdab, near Manaiu. Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. I). G. Smart, of Ilawera, appeared for the plaintiff (Playle), while Jlr. C. B. Morison, K.C., with .Mr. I'. O'Dca, of Hawera, appeared for the defendant company. Prom the statement of claim, it appeared that Playle was employed by Alfred Willeccks, farmer, of lf herdale, to . carry on the business of dairy farming oil Willcocks's farm, and to deliver the milk to the' factory for the defendant company. 'Willcocks took no part in the milking or in supplying the milk to the factory. The defendant company kept a test-book in which they made entries concerning milk delivered to_ the factory from different sources. It was in consequence of an entry made in reference to Willcocks's milk that the present action was commenced. Playle alleged that at the time this entry was made it was generally known that he was working for Willcocks and delivering milk in the latter's name. He alleged that the entry in the book meant that large quantities of water had beeyi added to the milk by him (Playle) or with his authority, aiid as he had suffered serious injury by the publishing of these statements, ho claimed .£5Ol damages. The defcnce was a denial that the words were capable of any defamatory meaning. The test published did not impute any malpractice to Playle, and .in a resolution . the directors stated that they were of opinion that the water got into the mill: accidentally. The jury found that the words and figures complained of referred to the plaintiff (Playle) and that they meant that large quantities of water had been added to tb» milk by Playle or by his authority. They found that although' the milk did contain water not originally in the milk/it did not do so to the extent shown in the test-book. The plaintiff was accordingly awarded damages. Nonsuit points, which had been raised by counsel for the defence, were left open for argument in the Court of Appeal. The points were as follow.— There was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury that the words and figures complained of were published of and concerning the plaintiff. ( The innuendo alleged in the amended statement of claim was not justified by the words and figures complained of. ' ' - There' was no evidence that the defendant company : was aware that the • plaintiff was a share-milker. Legal argument is' lengthy, and had not concluded last evening, when the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.