Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 32


     
     1        whether, even if those things were said actual
     2        cross-examination of the federal meat inspectors, and so on
     3        and so forth, absent contradictory proof from our side,
     4        whether this is a particularly important issue, but that is
     5        a matter for your Lordship, really.  I do not want to be --
     6        I will be quite honest -- I do not want to be faced at this
     7        time in the case with having to -- I cannot remember how
     8        old the events are which Miss Clauphine Carston deals with,
     9        but I do not want to be, to have to be faced at this stage
    10        in the case with having to find evidence to contradict what
    11        so far as been an inadmissible case.  That is really what
    12        it amounts to.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    15
    16   MR. RAMPTON:  If I said it would not be right and fair I should
    17        do, that is what I mean by that.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  We have not disputed the Plaintiffs should have the
    20        opportunity to call evidence contradicting.  We are suggest
    21        ing that, as has already been said, that it is a question
    22        of proving documents whose admissibility may be in question
    23        for whatever reason and that she would only just say, this
    24        is what I was told, yes, yes, yes and, yes, and there would
    25        not be any cross-examination.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I would have thought there would be an awful
    28        lot of cross-examination as to exactly who it was and what
    29        else was said and who else might have been present at the
    30        time it was said.
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  Right, but purely in terms of what was told to her
    33        that we are relying on.  We have relied on the facts in
    34        this statement since the pleadings were served.  The facts
    35        in the newspaper article which is pleaded in our pleadings,
    36        and there was every possibility that we might actually call
    37        the person that did the article.  Or, indeed, any of the
    38        people from the supply plants and the Plaintiffs chose not
    39        to, you know, to bring any evidence to counter that or
    40        whatever.  And, in fact, the Plaintiffs had an opportunity
    41        to deal with some of the matters through the questioning of
    42        Doctor Gonzales.  So, I think we have fairly put it to
    43        their witness and that therefore, strictly, that the
    44        bringing the witness to Court would be purely on proof on
    45        its admissibility, whether or not she was said those things
    46        by those people.  So, I think the questioning can be
    47        limited around it.  That is all, really.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    50
    51             (Ruling followed --  see separate transcript)
    52
    53             Now, do you want to deal with the question of
    54        Professor Hecht and her statement?
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:  I ought to deal with that since I object to it.
    57        The reason is simply this.  It is a question of timing.
    58        Can I remind your Lordship of some of the chronology?  I do
    59        not know if your Lordship has had a chance to look at this
    60        new statement.

Prev Next Index