Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 21


     
     1        not need to worry about it, because Mr. Rampton has said
     2        you are entitled to say that there is a comment there.  I
     3        would like you at some stage, if that is your argument, to
     4        express what the comment is and why you say it is comment
     5        rather than statement of fact, because I have tried to be
     6        candid with you and say I do not see it at the moment as
     7        comment.
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:   Which - torture?
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  If there is a comment there, as opposed
    12        to the statement of fact -- take this down if you like --
    13        if there is a comment in this part of the leaflet as
    14        opposed to a statement or statements of fact, what is the
    15        comment, formulate it for me.  That is, I think, the form
    16        of words to say what the comment is, and tell me why you
    17        would say that it is a comment rather than a statement of
    18        fact.  (Pause) Just listen to me for a moment.  You do not
    19        have to do it now, because you have got quite enough you
    20        can address me about even supposing that the reaction I put
    21        to you that they are all statements of fact and since they
    22        include a general sting you can rely upon all the matters
    23        of complaint you would rely on.  Nothing I am saying, in
    24        other words, is telling you, no, I do not want to hear
    25        about that because I can't take account of that.  Rather
    26        the reverse.  (Pause)
    27
    28        The last thing you said to me before Mr. Rampton
    29        intervened, helpfully, in my view, and then Mr. Morris had
    30        something to say, you said that on day 205 there was a
    31        discussion about inferential meaning.
    32
    33   MS. STEEL:   Yes, I do not know if you want to know which page
    34        it was on.  I can tell you if you want.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    37
    38   MS. STEEL:   It starts on page 11, and you said that McDonald's
    39        have pleaded an inferential meaning utterly indifferent and
    40        that, quote, that you may argue in future -- sorry, that
    41        you may argue in the future is what entitles you to call
    42        all the other evidence which you have called about what you
    43        would say is inhumane treatment of animals, particularly
    44        chickens, to support that, although they are not expressed
    45        as facts within the leaflet yourself.  Then you refer to
    46        paragraph 11.12 of Duncan and Neil.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   Then you say, there is a sentence there which reads 
    51        as follows, quote, the law is at the stage of development, 
    52        unquote, and then you say, it may be in due course argued 
    53        that it has developed beyond what is there, but the editors
    54        go on to say, quote, if the plaintiff himself plead an
    55        inferential meaning to the effect that the words meant, for
    56        example, that he was a dishonest man or unfit to be a
    57        director, unquote, you say, for which here read that the
    58        Plaintiffs were indifferent to the welfare of animals being
    59        the inferential meaning.  And then reading again, quote,
    60        the Defendants will then be free to introduce evidence of

Prev Next Index