Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 05


     
     1        think about whether you can get it transcribed but you need
     2        not do that at the moment.  While I am on it, Keith Baker,
     3        who is section A19, my copy is very difficult to read as
     4        well.  That is in longhand.  I hope I have remembered the
     5        right name.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  Statement of Ronald Cunningham, you asked for a
     8        better copy and, hopefully, now you have a better copy.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  That is in the general Civil Evidence Act Notices.
    13        The last one was just the correspondence file.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, very well.  What would be most helpful
    16        to me is if you say anything in reply which you wish to do
    17        to what Mr. Rampton said yesterday evening about your Store
    18        Hygiene and child labour law matters, including you were
    19        hoping to produce the New York Times photo of that article.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, yes.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Because it might be thought that that is
    24        slightly different to the -- it is the ninth of the
    25        specific allegations under Store Hygiene, if I remember
    26        correctly.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It might be in a slightly different category
    31        to the first eight because it includes on the printout
    32        summary unclean food contact surfaces and improper food
    33        temperature which we have had some evidence about.
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:  I found the document.  It is actually from the
    36        Washington Post, June 11th 1995.  (Handed).  It is a direct
    37        copy of a Digest compiled by Julie Goodman of the
    38        Washington Post, as it says at the bottom.  The only
    39        problem with it is that the actual town is not given.  It
    40        may be -----
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  District of Columbia, Washington.
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:  OK, yes, maybe that is what it means, district of
    45        Columbia, Washington, but that is a technical matter
    46        really.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It may not be technical, because it has to be
    49        particular enough for the Plaintiffs to have some prospect
    50        of enquiring into it. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:  Yes. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So it could be important.  Where do we see
    55        the district of Columbia?
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  We do not, my Lord.  I have "of Columbia" on to
    58        the word "district" and seeing that it is from the
    59        Washington Post I have assumed it meant the district of
    60        Columbia.  The other two are neighbouring states, Maryland

Prev Next Index