UNSTAMPED FRUIT

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 58, 9 March 1928, Page 10

UNSTAMPED FRUIT

' PROTECTION'."FOR-CONSUMER. / . Charges.of failing to. stamp their registered numbers on cases of fruit exposed. . for sale on their behalf in the Wellington fruit market were made against J. A. Gordon, a market'gardener of Taita, and P. , J. Amey, a fruiterer, of Greytown, in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Gordon pleaded guilty, while Amey did not appear. A. Dicker,, a fruit inspector, said that the regulations made under the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, 1908, provided that the marking of packages of fruit with the owner's registered number ap- ■ plied only to apples, • pears, quinces, peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots, cherries, oranges, and lemons. Any person selling such fruit was required to brand A his number ill one-inch block type on one end of each package. Applications for registration could be made to the Director of the Horticulture Division, ..Welling-'"1 ton, who , would then • allot the requisite *' numbers. No charge was made by tha" department for registration. , •"; "This registration not ■ only; affords pro-'- ' tection to the consumer, but also serves •• to locate the origin of diseased or' badly;;. •packed fruit, and further, helps to-main- .- tain the standard of quality on the local-. market," concluded the inspector,,-.:: „,; Each defendant was convicted and 'oi* dered : to r>ay. costs. , , ■.;■'■,'-. .".:' •'■:'•'■■-'