Day 250 - 15 May 96 - Page 51
1 Q. Right. OK. Did you have any notes of this?
2 A. No.
3
4 Q. No. As a person responsible for the litigation, you would
5 be aware of the pleadings?
6 A. Yes.
7
8 Q. You would be aware that in the pleadings we had not
9 admitted publication?
10 A. I think that is right.
11
12 Q. That it was something you had to prove?
13 A. Yes.
14
15 Q. In order to win the case?
16 A. Yes.
17
18 Q. Right. So, why was it that you did not include all these
19 details in your first statement?
20 A. Because I was of the opinion that the evidence in this
21 case was proved by the agents on publication.
22
23 Q. What was the point in giving any evidence at all about what
24 was going on on the 16th October?
25 A. Well, it was deemed necessary by our solicitors.
26
27 Q. I mean, for an example, you did not mention in your
28 statement that you had obtained a copy of the leaflet?
29 A. It certainly was known to Barlows that I had.
30
31 Q. So, did they deliberately leave it out then?
32 A. I do not know.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: How can he answer that question?
35
36 MS. STEEL: That must be the situation if you told them?
37 A. Sorry?
38
39 Q. You are saying that you told them that you had been given a
40 copy of the leaflet on this day?
41 A. I handed the leaflet to them.
42
43 Q. Is it not possible, Mr. Nicholson, that you are confusing
44 that with, you know, handing over leaflets on any other
45 number of occasions?
46 A. No.
47
48 Q. When you passed them to solicitors?
49 A. No.
50
51 Q. You are not able to positively identify the leaflet which
52 you were given on that day, are you?
53 A. Well, I know it was the leaflet complained of.
54
55 Q. Yes, but the copy of the leaflet that you obtained on that
56 day, you cannot positively identify it?
57 A. I do not know where it is.
58
59 Q. Right. You did not mark it, so you would not be able to
60 identify it?
