Day 233 - 26 03 96 - Page 22

 
 

                                                                  DAY 233
 
                                                  HOWARD LYMAN, Examined:
 
 
 
     1        anything which was directly said.  But from the words "he
     2        told me every year" down to "the same problem", that is the
     3        end of that paragraph, that is clearly, it seems to me,
     4        hearsay.  The last sentence depends upon the hearsay which
     5        came before it.  Again, whether Mr. Lyman is or is not an
     6        expert, the real purpose of having those sentences in, if
     7        they go in, is as evidence of the truth of what they
     8        contain, and that is not permissible, their being hearsay.
     9
    10        The same applies to the words in the next paragraph, from
    11        "when I talked to the operators" down to "as far away as
    12        Central America".
    13
    14        So what I have struck out at the moment are the words "who
    15        claim" to "restaurant chain", "he told me every year" to
    16        "face the same problem", and "when I talked to the
    17        operators" down to "Central America".
    18
    19        It may be that because the Defendants have not taken
    20        objection when the Plaintiffs have called witnesses, some
    21        hearsay has come in when the Plaintiffs' witnesses have
    22        been giving evidence, whether they have been experts or
    23        witnesses of pure fact.  But when I come to consider the
    24        evidence and my conclusions from it, at the end of the day,
    25        I will have to be acute to deciding then what is hearsay
    26        and, therefore, cannot be relied upon as evidence of the
    27        truth of what was said.
    28
    29        Objection has been taken by Mr. Rampton to the passages
    30        which I have struck out; and, for the reasons which I have
    31        sought to give, those objections seem to be well founded.
    32
    33        So, Mr. Morris, by all means, read the supplemental
    34        statement with those limited extracts struck out.  They
    35        could not have helped me to any conclusion in the case in
    36        any event.  But that is the position as I see it, so far as
    37        admissibility is concerned.  We will take the five minute
    38        break now and come back at 12 o'clock.
    39
    40                          (Short adjournment)
    41
    42   MR. MORRIS:  Continuing to read the supplementary statement:
    43
    44        "This is a supplementary statement on the US beef
    45        industry.
    46
    47        "I was involved in the cattle production industry for over
    48        forty years in the state of Montana in the United States of
    49        America.  During this time I operated a large feeding
    50        facility that fed all types of cattle." 
    51 
    52        If there is anything you want to clarify, do stop me at the 
    53        end of a paragraph.
    54
    55        "In the 1970s I was approached by a beef processor who
    56        claimed they supplied the McDonald's restaurant chain.
    57        They wanted me to buy beef and have them ready for
    58        slaughter on a schedule of their determination; the only
    59        consideration was the price and the fatness of the
    60        animals.  I was surprised there were no stipulations on
 
                                      22