MILK TEST CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 247, 8 March 1913, Page 6

MILK TEST CASE.

SUPREME COURT ACTION". SECOND DAY'S HEARJNO. Further evidence was taken in the Supremo Court yesterday, in the case in which Arthur Howard Phiyle claimed from the Rivet-dale Co-operative Dairy factory Company £5Ol damages for alleged libel. The whole of the morning and a portion of the afternoon was taken up with the examination of the plaintiff and his cross-examination by Mr. .Morrison.

The plaintiff gave- evidence on the lines of the opening address of his counsel. He wib, he said, milking on shares for his father-in-law (Mr. Wilk-ocks). His wife and Mrs. Willcocks assisted him with his work. ■Mr. Willcocks owned the farm and the herd, but confined his attention to the crops on the fa nil. Plaintiff also stated that in return for his work he got a share of the gross proceeds from the factory. The secre-' tary of the company knew that he was share-milking. The milk was'cooled by water which passed between the two chutes, down which the milk was conducted. If there had been any milk getting into the top chute he could have seen it. lie remembered being called into the factory on October 24 by J the manager to tell him that he could | not understand what was wrong with milk. It was deficient in quality. There was 110 mention of water. Witness was unable to give any explanation and invited him to come up to the farm and see for himself. The manager did not come up on that occasion. When witness got back to the farm lie closely examined the ehute, but there was no > water coming through. He had been delivering the milk in the same state thai he got it from the cows. He could not have accounted for the presence of ; water in it, if water there was. It would have been impossible to have put 10 or. 12 per cent, of water in the morning's milk without liis knowledge. The '■■ evening's nffck was left out to cool with- i out any cover, and so if there were rain it could have got in. It was kept in open cans on the stand, and that was the way milk was kept on the majority of farms. If there had been rain at . night there were no tests taken for water. On Octoher '22 there was a heavy night's rain, so that next morning there would have been water in the milk. No test, however, was made of his milk on the 33rd. On October 30 the factory manager came to the farm. Mr. Willcocks. who was also present, pointed out that there were two holes in the chute, where the water had been ■ getting in. Witness replied that there ■vcre no holes there two days before.' telling the manager that he must have scratched them in. The latter replied that one hole was there and he made itbigger, while the other one he scratched in. The holes were very small, not half the size of the end of a pencil, a little larger than the lead itself. Had water been coming in he would have noticed it. Witness detailed how his test ■ had been displayed in the test book in the window in the porch of a store, owned and kept by the defendant company. He noticed the book on the afternoon of October 31. and its contents were open to the gaze of all persons ; entering the store. Subsequently there appeared in the book a certain footnote containing (he alleged libel. Plaintiff stated, tha,t his. milk supply was liable to vary somewhat at any time, and mentioned that on October 28 it went up by 42fllbs. Witness attended a meeting of directors, one of whom asked him what reason the manager would have for scratching holes in the chute. Witness replied. "To prove that his test was correct." On November Ihe took a copy of the test-book. Later on in the morning it was covered with a piece of paper. After the meeting of directors the foot-note with the extra note (the alleged libel) added remained to the public view for some time. He and Mrs. Willcocks consulted their solicitors, who wrote to the directors, asking that the note be withdrawn and due acknowledgment made. They did not ask for damages. The company did not move in the matter, and plaintiff accordingly instituted legal proceedings. Cross-examined by Mr. Morrison, K.C.. witness said that usually, so far as feed was concerned, there was nothing much to affect the supply. He had been asked by the manager of the factory not to mix his morning and evening milk, and had replied that he had no power as regards the mixing of milk. Evidence was given by Margaret SmeDie, domestic servant in the employ

of Mrs. Willcoeks. On a certain day when she had occn-ion to go to the storo she hud read in the test-book, which was in display in the window. ;i footnote that Mr. Willcoeks l,ad added water to his milk. From her knowledge of the eircamstaiiees she inferred that the note referred to Mr. Playle. Thomas Rotfomly. a supplier to the Riverdale factory, described how he hail heard talk among the suppliers of the foot-note in, the test-book on display in the window. In consequence he went to the store, took the test-nook down and had a look at its contents. Tie look it that the foot-note referred to Playle. The variations in the quantity of riayle's milk were not extraordinary. Cross-examined by Mr. Morrison, the witness said that he had heard at the

factory that Willcoeks had been down and covered the note up mid that Playle had been watering his milk. Win. Higgs. Haw-era, with 15 years experience as a butter factory manager anil eight years' farming experience in Taranaki, said be was one -of the first risers of the Babeock testers in Xew Zealand. From' his experience he found

that there were very considerable var

in 1 Kins in quantity of a milk supply from day to day. This applied to both

sniiill and large herds. Considering I'layle's herd comprised Mm cows, lie thought the tabulated variations in his rniik°supply were exceptionally even. Using the Babcock tester he had often found, very considerable dill'erence between his own reading and that of the factory. The last year that he was supplying' it was often as high as point 3 nr A." He had often found variations in his supply without being able to explain the cause.

To Mr. O'Dea: For the month of October he would think 3.5 a good test. lie could not call to mind a test going down as much as seven points in 10 davs.

Ite-examined by Mr. Myers, witness said that a fall of seven or nine points ii August would not lie extraordinary. Patrick Pico, said he was in charge of the store during the absence of the secretary of the company. Mr,. Wyborn said that he had been told hy Playle that he was share-milking for his father-in-law. lie corroborated the evidence of previous witness in connection with the notes in the test-book. On November 1 he spoke to Mr. Playle in a peculiar manner about the note. Timothy Hurley, a farmer, residing nt the ITawera district, with some experience as a director of various dairy companies, gave corroborative evidence as to variations in the tests of milk and the quantity also at times. Tie had seen cases of suspected watering and the practice was to send samples to the Government analv.-t for analysis. To Mr. O'Dea: He had had no experienep of milk going down in test in (>(tob"r from :i.5 to 2.5.

gave corroborative evidence touching the footnotes in the test-book.

Alfred AYillcocks, farmer at Inaha, said he had been chairman of directors of the Riverdale factory. Witness remarked to the manager that the tests appeared to be going down, who had replied: "Yes, your's in particular." The manager told him that he had used a lactometer and Babcock tester combined for the test. The manager had said that his was bad and he was not too sure about his first test. When witness reminded the manager that he had not come up to the farm, the latter replied that it.was not necessary as his test had gone up to 3.4 and 3.5. On tire morning of the 26th there was a delay of an hour in milking at the farm owing to a break-down in the machinery. No water got into the milk, which on account of the lateness in the milking hour was heavier than usual. In response to a second invitation the manager visited his farm on the afternoon of October 31, and told witness that he had water in his milk, as lie had examined the chute and discovered holes in it. The manager told him that he had enlarged one hole that was already there and that he had made another with his penknife. Witness said he was surprised as it was a new chute. Playle said that he had examined the chute two milkings before, and there were no holes there then. Even if there were holes they could not account for, very much water. The same day that he heard about the note in the herd book he interviewed the manager, who said that he had only carried out the instructions of directors. He subsequently requested the secretary to take the note down, stating that as chairman he demanded its removal. The former then covered it up. On the night of October 31 and November 1 the cooler (the water apparatus) was not used at the farm. At a Meeting of directors on November 4, witness was in the chair. He offered to leave the chair, but the directors said not to mind, as they knew he had nothing to do with putting water in the milk. The meeting passed a resolution which was put in the test book as a- footnote. He took it that the note referred to Plavie.

To Mr. Morrison: He did not remark to Playle: "Now, here have I been cursing you. and it is the chute all the time." He did not express satisfaction with the resolution of the directors affirming that water had accidentally got into the milk through a defect in the cooling apparatus.

His Honor interjected that the whole case was: (1) Was the notice libellous; (2) could Plavie be connected with the libel. . ',

Further cross-examined, Willcoeks said that from time to time during his experience there had been many shareholders posted up for having added water in their milk.

Thomas 11. Easterfield, professor of chemistry at Victoria Collage, Wellington, said the only practicable test of whether water had been added to milk was by means of the freezing test. _ He saw nothing in the lactometer readings alone to indicate any suspicion of added water. Tt was quite usual to find genuine milk falling below 28 degrees. So much so was this the ease that Prussia and Belgian directions for market control are that milk is not to be exposed for sale if it falls below 28 degrees. The total solids of themselves merely indicated a suspicion of added water. He had tried by many methods of calculation to 'verify ' the conclusions of the added water column bv the manager. By analysis he found that the amount of suspected added water in No. 1 was of a minus quantity, in No. 2. 7.4, and in No. 5 2.3. On those results ho could not express a definite opinjon as to whether water had. been added, unless there was a definite test. He quoted authorities to show that a herd might on single days give milk rising more than 14 per cent or falling more,than 14 per cent, of the average value of the total solids for the year. One authority said that it was established that milk had been taken from 53 dairies in England, and of this number 7.3 gave milk with less than 12 per cent, of total solids. The case was adjourned, and the hearing will be resumed at 10 o'clock this morning.