MILK TEST CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 248, 10 March 1913, Page 3

MILK TEST CASE.

sri'itE-Mi-: conn: action. What is known :>.s (lie milk tesl case was advanced another stage in the Supreme Cmivi on Saturday. It is an ad ion for i'.'iOl damages for alleged libel. pnferred bv Avtiinr Howard Plavle against tin' liiverdale Co-operativc Dairy | Company. Professor lutstcrlti'lil was cross-exam-ined at length bv .Mr. O'Dea. Witness said in the course of his evidence that the only practicable test, was the cryoscopic. The freezing point of mi]]; depended upon the acidity of the milk. The average tests ot total solids in samples of milk taken in Taranaki was low. The average for the world was probably 8.0. Assuming everything to he normal, from the variations shown in the (inures in the alleged libel there would be strong presumptive evidence of added water. To .Mr. ll>ers: Under changed conditions a cow would behave abnormally. Mr. Morrison moved for a non-suit on the points:—(l) That the plaintiff was neither designated or referred to sufficiently in the libel; (2) that the "innuendo alleged is not reasonably justified by the terms of the libel; (3) that there is 110 evidence to go to the jury that the company bad noticed that ria> •In was a share-milker and that even the knowledge of the secretary is not notice to the company. Pis Honor reserved the non-suit, point. In opening bis case, Mr. Morrison said that Ihc company was defending the action in the interests of its shareholders and in the interest of the dairy industry generally. If the company found that it could not publish in the factory store for the information of those interested in the industry, the results of the hrfcs of the suppliers' milk, showing added water, then it was going to be a most serious matter to every shareholder. Added water might be added intentionally (counsel did not suggest this in this ease), negligently, or accidentally, but it was all the same to the factory. It objected to water in any shape or form, for the difficulty of manufacture was greatly increased by any addition of water. This case was not in the least degree a serious matter to the plaintiff and could not receive any justification whatever. When all was said and done water in a farmer's milk was a good occasion for a joke by his fellow suppliers. Of bis many advantages in life, Mr. Plavle bad not got the gift of the sense .of humor. The company bad published the tests for the last, 5 or fi years in. the same manner as it bad published the alleged libellous tests, without any objection on the part of the suppliers. Mr. Plavle imagined that he had a real grievance against the company for the publication of what it must publish in the interests of shareholders. When people published to those who were interested in that publication ecrtain bona liile matters without malice it was privileged, no matter how injurious that publication might, be to some third person, unless actual malice was shown. Counsel went on to contend that it would be shown that the alleged libel had absolutely no reference to Plavle, either directly or indirectly. The only person to which 'reference was made was Willeocks. Tn stating that there was no defamation of character, counsel described the action as a triviality. and indicated that expert evidence of dairV factory managers would be given to prove the reliability of tbej lactometer tests and the fact that variations shown in the plaintiff's tests were a sure indication of the presence of water.

Andrew Dunlop. manager of the TTawera Co-operative Dairy Company. stated that the milk from each particular farm had its own particular character, with which he was familiar, lie fouml that, in testing with lactometer only lie could foretell "to one degree what the test was going to be. Variations from day to day were very slight. The method he adopted for detecting the presence of water in milk was by the lactometer and l'abeoek test. After taking the samples of milk periodically, and 'knowing their individuality, he was quite satisfied with the accuracy of the method. The variation in lactometer readings spelt water. To ill', livers: llis company had never put up a notice giving the names of suppliers in whose milk added was found. ('has. Cooper, manager of the Mangatoki Co-operative. Dairy Factory, said that as a practical man he would recommend the lactometer and TSabeoek or the Evaporater and liabcock tests. ' AVhen the jury returned after the luncheon adjournment the foreman of the jury explained that several of the jurors being business men were attending at vcrv great inconvenience 011 'Saturday. which was always a busy day with them, anil if it was a matter of indifference to His Honor and counsel they "would much prefer to be excused from further attendance that day. Mr. Myers remarked that if the jury would be willing to sit 011 Mondav night he thought the case could be finished on that da v. If tliev were willing to do this lie had to objection to them getting away the.t •.-.fternoon. On behalf of the jnrvthe foreman .said thev would prefer to sit to any .hour 011 Monday night in order to get away that afternoon. The Court adjourned until 10 o'clock ' this morning.