THE LAW AND THE LEG OF MUTTON.

Dunstan Times, 28 December 1900, Page 3

THE LAW AND THE LEG OF MUTTON.

THE LEGAL DIFFERENCE 'TWIXT TONGUE AND PEN. [From the Evening Stab's Correspondent..] 'LONDON, November 9. The case of Cameron v. Wiggins, in which Justices Lawrence and Kennedy gave their judgment last Saturady in the Queen's Bench Division, is not calculated to imbue one with respect for the law of England. Bumble said the " law is a hass " ; according to the eminent Judges above-named it is all that and more. It is absolutely immoral, for it allows a merchant to verbally state with impunity that which is not ture to his customers, but if he puts pen to an untruth' on paper the law comes down on him " like a thousand bricks." Mr Cameron, it will be remembered, found out that in Blackpool and other Lancashire towns there was a good deal of fraud going on in the matter of selling River Plate mutton as New Zealand. He desired to bring home to the butchering fraternity the immorality of such proceedings, and to do so thought to make an example of one of them with the law's.assistance. In pursuance of his plan he went to the shop of Mr Wiggins in Blackpool armed Avith a handbill issued by Mr Wiggins advertising the fact that he sold " Canterbury mutton. ' Mr Cameron proceeded to work very artfully. He asked particularly for a leg of New Zealand mutton, because, he said, "my wife strongly objects to River Plate." Mr Wiggins intimated that he had a fresh New Zealand leg, which he was prepared to .sell at per lb. Mr Cameron agreed to trade on those terms, but on his bill being made out suggested to Mr Wiggins that it would be a satisfaction to Mrs Cameron if an indication was made on the invoice that the leg was of New Zealand origin. Mr Wiggins complied so far as to pen the letters " N.M." Believing that' this constituted under the Merchandise Marks Act a false trade description—the leg, Mr Cameron w.v> convinced, was • off a Plate Sheep—the New Zealand Produce Commissioner summoned Mr Wiggins. The case came before the Blackpool magistrates. No evidence was offered that the letters "N.M." had any particular indication iii the meat trade, but the justices found that the mutton sold by the respondent was not New Zealand mutton. They were of opinion, however, that the letters on the invoice did not constitute a trade description within the meaning of the Act, because, though they were written by the respondent, it was.not established that according to the custom of the trade such letters were commonly taken to be an indication of the place or country in which the mutton Avas produced; and secondly, that the facts found did not as a matter of IaAV amount to an application of a false trade description Avithin the meaning of the Act. So they dismissed the summons Avithout requiring Mr Wiggins to give eA'idence. Mr Cameron Avas not satisfied, and brought the matter into the High Court. The question he desired that august tribunal to settle Avas Avhether the letters "N.M." on the invoice constituted a false description. The case came on before Justices LaAvrence and Kennedy, Mr Horace Avory appearing <m Mr Cameron's behalf, but the respondent Avas unrepresented. The Judges, hoAvever, constituted themselves his counsel, and Mr Wiggins certainly did not suffer through his negledt to provide Mr Avory with a court opponent. Their lordships took time to consider their judgment, which Avas delivered by Mr Justice LaAvrence. He said there could be no doubt that a deception had been practised on the purchaser, because the magistrate found as a fact that this AAas not New Zealand mutton at all. If there had onlv been a verbal representation that it Avas NeAV Zealand mutton Avhen it Avas not there ayouW have been no-offence under the Act. In his judgment the magistrates Avere wrong Avhen they dismissed the summons. As, hoAvever, the magistrates dismissed the case Avithout -requiring the defendant to call eA-idence, he could not say the justices ought to convict the respondent Avithout hearing the case he Avas prepared to put forward. Therefore the matter must go back to the magistrates, Avith an intimation that if the facts remained as found by the justices there ought, in the judgment of the Court, to be a conviction, subject, of course, to any alteration that might be made by respondent's evidence. Mr Justice Kennedy concurred, and the case Avas therefore remitted to the magistrates to be further dealt with. * Whether it was worth the New Zealand Government's Avhile to prosecute this case is open to question. Even if Mr Wiggms is convicted" I doubt whether any considerable progress will have been made in purging the local meat trade of the sin of selling River Plate as NeAV Zealand mutton. The butchers will still be able to assure customers avlio raise the question of place of origin that the meat is NeAV Zealand or River Plate or Timbuctoo if they choose to do so, for not one buyer in a thousand will folloAV Mr Cameron's'plan of asking the butcher to specify the nature of the meat on the bill. The action, indeed, had only one definite result, and that is to show that verbal deception is not a punishable offence under Hie Merchandise Marks Act as read by the Judges of the High Court of Justice. ■