EXPOSED FRUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 111, 12 May 1926, Page 8

EXPOSED FRUIT.

SHOPKEEPER CHARGED. DISCUSSED BY MAGISTRATE. A case of vital interest to city fruiterers was decided by Mr. H. Y. Widdowson, P.M.. in the Magistrate's Court at Christchurch on Tuesday, when he dismissed charges against live shopkeepers of. having exposed fruit and other edible goods outside their premises without same being properly covered. Mr. Brown, who appeared for the Department, said the regulations stated that occupiers of shops shall protect their fruit from dust and flies by covering it effectually in such manner as the by-law may direct, or in the absence of any by-law the goods must be covered to the satisfaction of the health inspector. In this case there was no local body by-law. Richard James McKenzie, inspector of health, stated that he had visited the shops of all the defendants, and he detailed what fruits and vegetables were exposed outside the shops. To Mr. Thomas: It was the general rule of the shopkeepers to have the picked fruit in the windows. He was not complaining about bananas. As a rule every piece of celery was washed before it* was eaten. In answer to questions, witness admitted that practically all the fruit he saw outside the shop was "seconds." The Department objected to boxes in the doorway on account of dust. Replying to the magistrate, witness said he was satisfied that the fruit was not all cooking fruit. The magistrate, quoting from the regulations, said they applied to goods which were commonly eaten in an uncooked state, and Mr. Thomas agreed. Mr. Brown said that if defendants were permitted to say whether the fruit exposed was cooking or dessert then the whole object of the regulations would be defeated. Adherents of the Devereaux diet would eat the fruit and vegetables raw. The magistrate said each defendant was charged specifically -with having had certain fruits and vegetables exposed, and the point was whether these were commonly eaten in an uncooked state. He was of opinion that this had not in the first instance been proved well enough to warrant a conviction. On the other hand, it tiad been disproved by the defence. He therefore must hold that the fruits and vegetables named were not commonly eaten uncooked. As Mr. Thomas had rightly pointed out, such a view did not nullify the regulations in the least. It could not be held that there was a breach of the regulations. The charges would be dismissed.