Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

PORK ON MENU

TWO CHINESE FINED

RATIONING BREACHES

"I think that when a" rationed commodity such as pork is found in substantial quantities in the kitchen of a restaurant in a city like Auckland, as part of the food to be cooked for customers, and there is a wild skelter to remove the pork so- as to prevent it being found by a rationing inspector when he enters the premises, I am entitled to infer that it is pork acquired by the proprietor in breach of the regulations."

This comment was made by Mi*. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day when he delivered a reserved judgment in a case where David Chan was charged that, by having on his premises, the Chungking Cafe De Luxe, on April 16, pork suitable for supply to patrons, he acted with intent to commit a breach of Clause 3 of the Sales of Pork Restriction Order, 1943.

Chan was further charged with acquiring rationed goods (pork) and, further, with having pork on his premises on a later date. On the same date as the charges against Chan were heard, William Wong Doo, of the Chinese Tea House, was similarly charged on two accounts. Mr. Trevor Henry represented Chan, while Mr. J. F. W. Dickson appeared for Wong Doo. In both cases pleas of not guilty were entered. Counsel's Contentions Mr. I Luxford mentioned in his judgment that Mr. Henry had addressed legal argument in support of his two contentions, merely that a breach of the Sales of Pork Restriction Order was not an offence, and that the evidence for the prosecution merely showed that defendant Chan was in possession of pork and that proof of possession was not proof of acquisition within the meaning of the regulations. Mr. Luxford referred to the general prohibition against supplying any rationed goods except under the authority of a permit granted by the Food Controller. The only possible way the defendant could, in the circumstances, have acquired the pork without committing a breach of the regulations would have been by stealing it. If it was purchased from, or given gratuitously by, a person without a permit, that person supplied it unlawfully.', If defendant slaughtered the pigs, from which the pork was derived, he still would have unlawfully supplied the pork to himself and so acquired it in breach of regulations. "Having regard to the whole of the surrounding circumstances and the express provisions of the regulations, I must find as a fact that the prosecutor (Sergeant J. L. Adams) has proved the allegation contained in the second information and enter a conviction accordingly," Mr. Luxford said. „ On one charge Chan and Wong Doo were each fined £10 and convicted, being discharged on the second. On the third charge against Chan, who, the magistrate said, had unfortunately gone on to supply pork, a fine of £50 was imposed.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19450717.2.76

Bibliographic details

PORK ON MENU, Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 167, 17 July 1945

Word Count
482

PORK ON MENU Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 167, 17 July 1945

Working