ALLEGED MILK WATERING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 59, 11 March 1913, Page 8

ALLEGED MILK WATERING.

CLAIM FOR LIBEL,

VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF

The case was continued yesterday md practically concluded, the jury hiding for the plaintiff on all the our counts submitted to them by his Honor.

Evidence was given by Charles Coop'r, manager of the Mangatoki Dairy -o.; W. W. Forsyth, factory manager or the Riverdale Co.; J. V. Wyourn, secretary of the Riverdale Co.; nd Robert Brown, instructor in agriulture under the Wanganui Educaion Board. The following formal issues, as sctled by the Judge in Chambers, were übmittcd to the jury:—(1) Were the .ords and figures complained of writon and published of and concerning ne plaintiff? (2) Do the words combined of mean—that large quantities f water had been added by the plainff and by his authority or with his nowledge and approval for some imiroper purpose to the milk delivered y him at the defendant’s factory in be name of Alfred Willcocks?” (3) lid the milk in fact contain water ot originally in the milk? (4) To .'hat damages (if any) is the plaintiif utitled ? Mr Myers addressed the jury, and is Honor summed up, speaking for alf an hour. He pointed out that c was immaterial whether any libel >ad been intended. The jury would .ave to consider interpretation of the ■ ords. Would a reasonable man to vhom the publication was read conider that they conveyed a defamatry meaning? Did the words imply disonesty? If the jury found that they lid not, then it was no use considoing the other issues. For what obect were the words published? Was j merely to publish carelessness, and, vould not the proper course have been assuming the milk was watered) to ’dvise Mr Willcocks personally? Ought j i man to he pilloried at all for care-' lessness and could a man be pilloried at all, without any suspicion of disbonesty? These wore questions for the jury, with whom lie need hardly' mention rested the whole case. He

was not directing them one way nr the other. Touching on another issue, lis Honor said it would ho .necessary :o consider it', whether it was a libel, it was a libel on the plaintiff. Itj vonld be sufficient if the jury satisfied j tself that in view of their knowledge if the parties concerned, it could reasonably be treated by person.- living! n the neighbourhood as conveying to' :heir minds tliat the words might be ] ipplied to the plaintiff. The qnes-i tion whether the milk contained watery

was not material at all to the quesi tion at issue. Finally, if the jury { did not find on the first two issues for j the plaintiff the question of damages j did not arise. Taking all the circumI stances into consideration it was not j one—if the jury found there was libel —for contemptuous damages. | , THE VERDICT. 1 The jury retired at 4.15 p.m. and at 5.40 returned to the body of the Court. Mr Morrison formally handed in his points for a non-suit, and the foreman then announced that the jury had arrived at the following conclusions: Ist count, yes; second count, yes; third count, yes, but pot to the extent shown in the test-book. The jury were unanimous on tho first three issues, butj were unable to agree on the last count. At tho suggestion of his Honor they again retired in order to arrive at either a unanimous decision or a threefifths majority. After a retirement of ten minutes they •returned with a verdict for £35 damages. Mr Myers moved for a judgment, and Mr Morrison for a non-suit. His Honor said that these two matters would have to be argued later, and he accordingly reserved his decision. The decision will most likely be given in Wellington.—Xews.