REGISTRATION OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 163, 10 July 1906, Page 3

REGISTRATION OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES.

& PAETIAL-LY ENFORCED ACT,

AMBIGUOUS SLAUGHTERING

REGULATIONS.

Continuing the hearing of charges brought by the stock inspector (Mr F. ■pi grittain) against Harry Wilson for dressing a calf for human consumption w ei'»hin2 under COlb, and against Joseph pascoc for procuring Wilson to commit an offence against the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1900. Mr Kettle, SJI.. heard evidence yesterday afternoon from one of the defendants, Wilson, who stated that be had had 25 rears' experience in the butchering trade. He always included tho head. pluck, feet- s ' <m ' n the weight of a calf for the butcher. The carcase in question was not weighed because it seemed over the regulation minimum. Pascoc gave evidence that he got Wilson to kill the calf because he was ill B t the time. He bad killed hundreds bf calves himself. He estimated that the calf r iu question would be considerably over 60Ib in weight. A slaughterman named Byers, engaged at the city abattoirs, was called by jjr Lundon (solicitor for defendants) to show that head. feet. skin, and pluck Were always included with the eafcase in delivering it to the butcher. He did not know until lately that there was a HOlb limit. Since Mr Brit tain had called attention to the regulation, all calves leaving the abattoirs had bten weighed.

His Worship expressed the opinion that the regulations had been badly drawn, because it was not clear from them what was the dressed weight. '"It k the slipshod way in which these regulations are drawn which causes all ibis trouble/ he added.

Mr Mays urged that on the defendown showing the calf could not iave weighed (301 li.

Mr Lundon: The calf weighed 421b, rhe skin 101b, the head and feet 91b. •I'here you have 011b, and the pluck ia jot taken into consideration.

The magistrate stated that it was 'for the pro=eeution to prove the meaning of the term "dressed weight," and to prove the weigiit of the calf.

Mr Mays asked for an adjournment to permit of calling expert evidence as to the meaning of the term. He added that it was an important point because the trade in calves "24 hours old was enormous.

The information against Pascoe was dismissed.

Before dealing with Wilson, his Worship remarked that the whole ease Tested upon the interpretation of the term, "dressed weight.'" If the Crown wished to call expert evidence, he would give them the opportunity, providing the defendants were indemnified against the extra expense.

Mr Mays: "As a matter of fact, the whole Act and the regulations require re-castiup. It is almost impossible to decide what 'dressed weight' now means." He added that the Treasury would not permit him to pay any of tho defendant's costs.

His Worship replied that in consequence lie would have to decide on the case as it stood. A pood deal of doubt was exhibited as to tlie meaning of the term '"dressed weight," aud he was satisfied that the prosecution had not established that the carcase was under proper weight. Accordingly, he would dismiss the information. UNREGISTERED SLAUGHTERHOUSE. William Morrow, an Eden Terrace butcher, pleaded not guilty to having unlawfully exposed for sale a calf not slaughtered in accordance with the provisions of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1000, while William Clark' pleaded not guilty to having sold an animal to Morrow not slaughtered in accordance with the Act, also with slaughtering at other than a registered slaughterhouse.

Mr Mays, prosecuting on behalf of the Crown solicitor, said he understood that Clark thought he could ■take advantage of exemptions under the Act, but bona iide farmers were only permitted to slaughter without sale to butchers. These prosecutions had nothng to do with nnder-weight calves.

Constable O'Grady, Avondale, stated that Clark had two acres of land, and kept a few pigs. He saw the carcase of a calf hanging up near a pigstye on Clark's premises, and subsequently followed the defendant into Kingsland, where he delivered the carcase to Morrow. Witness ascertained that the calf was sold for ten shillings, and that it was above the regulation weight. Mr Lundon. who defended, stated that Clark had 32 acres of land, and classed himself as a farmer. Thus In; thought he was exempt from the regulation for registering the place where he occasionally slaughtered stock. He did not know that farmers slaughtering in that ■""ay could not sell to butchers.

Francis H. Brittain, stock inspector. deposed that he had warned Clark not to slaughter for sale to butchers. In reply to Mv Lundon. he said it was quite a common thing for farmers to slaughter pigs and sell to the butchers, though pigs also came under the regulations. In the case of pigs, the law "frus not enforced.

Mr Lundon: There is no license to «H in the city abattoirs at the present time?

'Mr Brittain: Not that I am aware .of.

-Mr Lundon: Animals killed there are «lled in breach of the Act! jlr Mays: There is a properly qualified inspector at the city abattoirs. His Worship, in giving his decision, commented upon the non-enforcement W the law where pijrs were concerned. Anybody who had read of the recent American meat scandals must, he said, recognise that regulations ensuring that weat intended for public consumption should he wholesome ought to lip enforced. He was surprised that the law had not been enforced in re ?ard to pig S; he did not know whyj excepting that the pig trade was a big ™c, and it would be rather unpopular "enforce the Act. If the law was °au it should be amended, but so long Til l i W , as a law !t should be enforced. hf «7 Clark 10/ with costs on each w the two informations, and in regard to Morrow imposed a penalty of £1 wtn costs.