TO DODGE DUST GERMS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 60, 11 March 1915, Page 2

TO DODGE DUST GERMS.

SHOP FBOTT TO BE SCRXEHED. THE BY-LAW CHALLENGED.A charge against a fruit-barrow boy of-having-sold "fresh food that is ordinarily consumed in the state in which it as sold" without having protected such-food until- delivery from the- contamination of dust and flies, wae made the-occasion at theTPolice Court 'this^morning of test-"" ing the vaMityTofthe City Cotmar* law in its relation to the frmt trade, and Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., appeared for the youngster, Mr. flaynes (Chief Sanitary "Inspector for the City .Council) otated that on a particular day he saw the boy in "charge of a .frnit-barrow in Karangahape Road, and on the barrow fruit such as and peaches was exposed for sale, without any protection from dust and flies, while beside the barrow apples were ex-posed-in an. open case. — -In "reply to Mr. Reed, the • witness stated that -the by-law applied- to any pereon who sold fruit,-in-shops as welFasin the barrows." A "gauze,TiFfinfe"enough, was- an 'adequate protection from dust," hot butter-cloth, but something finer.7 Lke linen." 'Glass cases made the "best protection," and they were'being used in a half-hear ted manner in sonic" shops, though" aTTfruit"tnat"hadT!ot7a hard"skin" "and," like apples', "peaches, "pears; was consumed ordinarily .without cooking or peeling, should be so protected, , x . Do enforce -that?—We_ are endeavouring to do so, and expect to do so, though, as it is largely educational work, it is .. - __ _ ....Mjr. Reedj about lettuce"? It should- be protected "lit the same manner. . ilr. Reed-: apply also -to the baker carrying-bread- in a- basket ■from- his cart;, to the-house?—Yes, it ap--pliea.io>that, and -will he enforced eventually in-that direction. .... .Ji -Air.'Read argued that an essential in a. -byfhtwvwas' that it jnust,,he cerxain.in.its -terms" and-contain: adequate. information in those terms to enable Ahose - to »"hom it'appli*"to'know"exactly:"what the by-" law "intends. He that "food ordinarily consumed-dn t«e state in 'which it is sold" was too' vague- to - enable tradespeople to discriminate-as to <what goods should go -underr'gauze -~or- glacis, ami wha* should- be-lv&ir-on-- the open staH" or coijnten -Ho abo ; argued —that - the by-law made unreasonable restric--tdons on the tradespeople concerned, and submitted authorities to support both contentions.

i" Mr. Haynee stated that the".by-3aw" followed aimoet "word" for .word Government Tegnlations. that" Had been issued'onder the SaJeof Food and Drugs"Act: "

- Mr. Cutten, S.H.. stated that" at "the moment he-had not been 7 convinced by couneel, buf- ne would reserve hjs decision and.gixe it in writing,:

. Other, prosecutions of fruit - sellers under the by-jaw were adjourned until after decision, in this case. ,