MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23970, 10 June 1943, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

WEDNESDAY (Before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M. BREACH OF REGULATIONS Harry Wong, a fruiterer, of Colombo street, appeared to answer three charges of breaches of the Apple and Pear Marketing Regulations 1942, in (1) that he offered for sale apples and pears that were not purchased from the Marketing Department or an authorised agent of the department; (2) that he purchased 11 bushel cases of apples which had not the registered mark of the owner, name of the variety of apples, and grade of fruit stamped on the cases; (3) that he purchased 11 bushel cases of apples in respect of which an inspection fee was payable and to which inspection fee stamps had not been affixed. Mr A. W. Brown, prosecuting for the department, said defendant carried on business as a fruiterer in Colombo street. On May 3 an officer of the Agriculture and Marketing Department had noticed apples and pears of a certain variety in the defendant’s shop window. Asked where the fruit came from, Wong said it was purchased from a man who came to the shoo in a car and was not purchased through the usual channels. The regulations were brought down in 1942 and should have been known by defendant. This was the first case of its kind brought before the Court in ‘Christchurch, although Wong had been warned regarding other alleged breaches. Mr Brown said the fruit had been openly displayed, and though it was generally conceded that other shopkeepers were breaking the regulations, It was hard to lay a 'charge on them. John Alfred Renal, an officer of the Marketing Department, corroborated the statements outlined by Mr Brown, and further evidence was given by Arthur H. Grainger, orchard and garden instructor under the Garden Diseases Act. The second and third charges, he said, arose oyt of the same set of circumstances as the first. Wong said that he had paid cash for his fruit. The department regarded the breach as a serious one, as without the required brands it was impossible to trace the seller, who was liable %to have similar charges laid against him. Defendant might not have known that it was necessary to affix stamps as in some cases they were not used. The Magistrate suggested that as it was sometimes a practice not to affix stamps the third charge be withdrawn. This was agreed to and Wong was fined £5 on each of the first two charges.

CIVIL PROCEEDING (Before Mr F. F. Reid, S.M.) Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following cases:—G. McClatchle and Company, Ltd., v. C. Wallace, £1 Ss sd; Liquidators of Canterbury Transport, Ltd., v. H. H. Cook, £4 7s; New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association of Canterbury, Ltd., v. Coryh Huddy. £7 Os lOd; Calder Mackay Company, Ltd., v. John Roylance Naisbltt, £47 6s 6d; Morris Blackburn v. N. G. Smith, 15s; J. Ballantyne and Company, Ltd., v. E. Taylor, £l4. ' In the estate of David and George Lee and Herbert Lee v. D. Mackintosh, £l3 and order for possession was made.

An order for possession on or before August 1 In favour of James Richard Russell was given against Elsie Maud Couzins.