THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15452, 3 December 1915, Page 2

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. (B'More Ins Honour ilr Justies l Denniston.) ALLEGED MOULDY FLOUR.

The ca.-e was resumed in which Cook and MeKenzie, bakers (Mr Wright), claimed £:U~> damages from Wood Brotheiv, Ltd. (Mr G reason, with him Mr Neavei, in respect to a supply of flour alleged to have been affected bv fungus. Further evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was given by O. H. Gilby, Ethol M. Gibson. .J. Baxter, E. Harrison A. rit_*bcl«*j!, I?, fv Ward, W. Hrvant. C. Ferrier, W. Shaw. L. KnowKs, .7. Neave. A. McKeuzio, and J, M. Stewart. THE DEFENDANTS' CASE.

Mr Neare, in evening for the deforce. outlined the defendants' case, and relied mainly on the contention that the v.-liole trouble arose from the infected condition of the plaintiffs' bakehouse L - the presence of the disease known as ro'w.

I J'rederick I*. Corson, managing clerk j for tin; defendants, stated that some | tunc in Detvmbor last, the firm lent I some (lour to tho New Zealand Government. 111 January the Government was asked to return the quantity loaned, but beinj; unable to irive flour, the Government returned 30db bags of I Australian wheat. Trial runs wero made to asecrifiin how much flohr the wheat would produce. The triai rails were made on February 11th, -oth and 20th. As flour was inado at the mill each sack was numbered, and it was possible to toll from the number of a saek the date and hour on which it was manufactured. From the numlx?rs supplied by plaintilfs' saek No. 23,-JO3 was made about l.'W p.m. oil February 26th, No. _25.423 about 2.30 p.m., and No. 28.140 about 4 p.m. From tho firm s records he knew that tho flour supplied to plaintiffs was mado from Australian wheat. No complaints, save fi oiii thi* plaintiffs, had I>ooii received from those to whom tho 'lour was supplied. Speaking generally, flour made irom Australian wheat was better than thu t made lrom New Zealand wheat, as it was so much drier. Witness could not speak definitely as to the ago of the Australian wheat used, but ho knew tl.«it the Australian harvest of Novom- J ber-December, 1914, was Ixiught no by the Australian Government. Under witness's instructions bread had been baited J rom the flour complained of and was submitted to Dr. Foster. Harry Hopkinson. foreman miller of ue.ondsinls mill, doscribcd the process Of milling. The Australian wheat, re!erred to by the previous witness,'was stacked separately, and only Australian wheat was used in making the flour complained of. Tho flour was tested, witness himself making a loaf of bread with some of it. A good, sound and sweet loaf resulted. A musty line of flour conM not bo put

through the mil] wiUiorit exports like himself smelling it. There was not the slightest smell of must in any of the Hour made from the Australian wheat. i- 00 - 1 * certain samples from plaintifi s The atmosphere struck him as being too hot for the storage of grain; millers considered the temperature in stores should be from <10 degrees to 70 degrees. lie. as miller, received no complaints\ about the flour. He produced a book in which he had noted the persons and firms to whom the Australian flour was delivered, j Further evidence was given by l)r. A. Foster and Dr. F. W. liilgondorf. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. today.

i MAGISTERIAL. (Ccforo Mr 11. W, Bishop, S-M.) DRUNKENNESS. X mule first offender was convicted of drunkenness, .and with breaking a cab window, doing damage to the extent/ of Jiil, He wad fined os, and ordered to pay the cost of the damage; ] in default seven days' imprisonment, j Two oilier male first offenders, and j a female first offender, were each fined 03. in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Cimrlod Weston, who appeared on remand, charged wifn drunkenness and a breach of his prohibition order, was convicted and discliarscd. "A MEAN ACT." James Luke pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited woman with liquor. The lacts of the case, according to the |K)tice, were that accused knew that the wo'.nan was prohibited, and having watted till her husband had left his house, he took her 2s worth of -whisky. When the woman's husband came home lie found his wife drunk on the floor. His Worship characterised accused's action as a mean, dirty, contemptible act, and lie would imjKise a fine of £5 or one month's imprisonment in default.

CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintitY for the amount claimed and costs was given in each of the following cases: —Trustfio for Thomas Ilciishall and Sou v. Arthur Boxall. £3 19s Id: Richard W. .Anderson v. Henry J. Smith. £1 L's (>d: Herbert Wri>;!it v. AVm. Taylor, £4 A DEAL IN CHAFF. Thomas Davidson (Mr Cassidy). farmer. of Tenij>lcton, claimed the stun of £-8 los 3d from Field and Rovds (Mr Uotre) for chaff supplied. The defence was that t-lio chaif was musty and not of fair average finality, hut judgment was for plaintiff for £11 7s 7d.

LYTTELTOX. (Before Mr George C. Smith, J.P.) I>RUNKKNNESS AND THEFT. George Horne pleaded guilty to drunkenness and to stealing four glasses, valued at lis, tin; property of Joseph Mandel, licensee of the United Service Hotel. On the first charge ho was,lined os, and on the second 10s.