SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26395, 13 April 1951, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

APPEAL BY CROWN UPHELD * CASE REMITTED FOR CONVICTION ' An appeal by the Health Department against a decision by Mr R. M. Grant, S.M., given in the Magistrate’s Court at Ranglora, in which he dismissed two informations against John James Hughey, milk vendor, for selling milk containing added water, was upheld by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday in a reserved decision. His Honour remitted the case to the Magistrate to decide upon which information the conviction was to be entered and to impose such penalty as in the circumstances may be proper. Mr A. W. Brown appeared for the department, and Mr A. C. Fraser, of Rangiora, for the respondent, when the appeal vugg heard on March 9 and April

It was a case on appeal stated by the Magistrate, who dismissed two informations of the appellant against the respondent for selling milk containing added water, said his Honour. The case stated disclosed that the milk contained 11 per cent, of added water, although the Magistrate did think there might he matters of mitigation. The defence, therefore, was entirely technical. The Magistrate dismissed the informations because, as he said, of a failure on the part of a Health Department inspector to fulfil the statutory requirements defined by Section 12 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1947, in not giving the respondent portion of the samples of the milk he took. In his judgment the Magistrate said: "Arthur Samuel Royfee, a retail milk vendor, purchased his milk supplies from the Canterbury Dairy Farmers’ Co-op. Milk Supply Company, Ltd. Hughey, a farmer, had entered into a contract with the Milk Supply Company, Ltd., by which he delivered milk to Royfee. On September 12, 1950. an inspector called at Hughey’s farm and took samples of milk which had been delivered by Hughey to Royfee. A portion of the samples was given to Royfee, but no portion was given to' Hughey." His Honour said that the officer complied with the provisions of the act in respect of Royfee. Finding that Hughey had offended against Section 6 of the act, the officer was entitled to proceed against him not as an officer but as a common informer. He held therefore that there should have been a conviction. "Two informations were laid, one in respect of the sale to Royfee and the other in respect of the sale to' tbe Canterbury Farmers’ Co-op. Milk Supply Company. Ltd. It is not clear upon the case which of these sales the Magistrate decided had been made by the respondent at the time the sample was taken from Royfee. It might have been a sale to the Milk Supply Company through Royfee as the agent of the company, or It might have been a sale to Royfee direct. At any rate there was only one sale by Hughey and there can be only one conviction,” said his Honour. The appeal was upheld as stated, and the appellant was allowed £7 7s costs.

WIDOW GIVEN PROVISION FROM ESTATE A draft order, giving Ellen Langley, a widow, £6OO a year from the income of the estate of her husband, James Frederick Langley, a farmer, of Rakaia, who died on March 31, 1947. was approved by Mr- Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday. The order also gave the widow the furniture and effects in the home, the right to occupy the homestead free of all charges until a further order of the Court, and suspended distribution of the estate for five years, this being the currency of the order. Mr E. M. Hay appeared for the plaintiff, Mr L. A. Charles, of Ashburton, for the trustees, Mr W. R. Lascelles for the eldest son of the testator, Mr K. J. McMenamln for the five daughters, and Mr P. H. T. Alpers for the two younger sons. Mr Hay said that the testator, who was 57 when he died, left an estate of £22,746, and after estate duty and costs had been paid it would be £17,827. The only substantial asset was a farm, with stock and plant. When he drew up his will the testator apparently over-estimated the value of his estate. He made provision for his children but, as the will stood, the widdw got nothing, from the estate. Very happy relations prevailed among the family, and the children conceded that their mother had first claim on the estate.

His Honour said that the family properly and generously recognised that the widow's claim was paramount. The proposal was a proper one and one to wnich the Court should give its approval, giving it a currency of not more than five years. It would suspend distribution of the estate for that period. By that time the youngest son would be of age and the matter could then be reviewed.

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE PETITIONS

A decree nisi, on the grounds stated, was granted the petitioner in each of the oilowing undefended petitions for divorce, reard before Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday:— Desertion: Joan. Kathleen Brown (Mr E. M. Hay) v. Raymond Thomas Brown. Separation: Corrie Irene Robinson (Mr P. M. MacCallum) v. Lawrence Noel Robinson; Ronald Victor Milne (Mr E. S. Bowie) v. Betty Duff Milne; Patricia June Gorman (Mr R Templeton) v. Daniel John Gorman; Marion Christian McConchie (Mr E. M. Hay) v. Godfrey McConchle. Restitution of Conjugal Rights

In the following petitions for restitution of conjugal rights the petitioner was granted an order for restitution within the time stated:— Donald David Tuer (Mr D. W. Russell) v. Eileen Olive Tuer, within 21 days; Henry Frank Stevens (Mr W. G. P. Cuningham) v. Norma Stevens, within 14 days. Nullity Sult Doreen Joan Treloar (Mr E. M. Hay) petitioned to have her marriage to William Albert Treloar declared null and void on the ground that when the respondent went through the fc-rm of marriage with the petitioner he was already married and this first marriage was still subsisting. The petitioner was granted a decree nisi to be made absolute after three months.