RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before Messrs G. L Denniston and A. Nicol, Justices )
L. Faigan v. William Thompson.—Claim, L 4 15s, for a suit of clothes. Mr Calvert appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with costs. J. Stewart v. W. Donaldson.—Claim, Ll3 13s 2d, on a judgment summons. Mr Bathgate appeared for tho plaintiff ; Mr Meatyaid for the defendant.—The defendant, examined on oath, said that judgment was given against him in April, 1888, for groceries supplied. Since that date he had paid L2 10s on account of the judgment. He kept the Highcliffe Hotel, but the furniture in the house and the cows about the place belonged to his wife. He now paid cash for all goods ho got. Ho had a wife and eight children to support. The cows were given to his wife by her mother. Only one of them was milking. To Mr Meatyard: Mrs Donaldson’s sister put her into the hotel. He had to borrow money to pay the license fee, end that had not been repaid. His average takings were L2 10s per week. He owed money to Keast and M’Carthy and other creditors.— No other evidence was offered. —Mr Denniston said that the Bench were not satisfied with the defendant’s evidence. According to his own confession he appeared to have had a few pounds in hand since the date of the summons, and had made no effort to pay this debt. The amount was sued for upwards of eighteen months ago, for groceries and luxuries, and judgment obtained. It was the duty of tho family to make an effort to pay the account. They were satisfied, from his own confession, that he had had a few pounds from the date of the judgment. An would he made for the payment of 10a per month (the first payment a month hence), iu default seven days’ imprisonment. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs E. H. Carew, R.M., and J, Logan, J.P.) Drunkenness.— For this offence, Georye Cripps (one previous conviction) was convicted and discharged, and Michael Dunn (three previous convictions) was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, the fine to he paid on Monday. Struck Out.— The oases Williams v. Youny, Westfold v. Bales, Findlater v. Find Inter, Murphy v. Murphy were either struck out or adjourned, the parties not putting in an appearance. Adulterated Milk. —Jleclor M'Canyhan was charged with having, on the sth nit., sold to John Hanson one pint of adulterated milk. Mr W. Maegregor defended.—Mr B. C. Haggifct, who appeared to prosecute, said that the information was laid under the sth section of the Milk Adulteration Act, 1880. The defendant was really charged with adulterating milk by adding water to it, and the Act mentioned hi one of its provisions that if any substance had bees added to another food substance to reduce its finality to a stipulated extent, an offence was constituted. Milk should contain not Jess than 9 per cent, of milk solids, not fat, and the milk was found not to contain the quantity mentioned in the provisions of the Act. The offering of such milk or other adulterated food made the seller liable to be convicted for the offence. Defendant had been convicted before for a similar offence, Mr Maegregor objected to the latter statement. That was not tho proper course to pursue. — Mr Haggitt said that the particulars of the conviction could be mentioned in the information if it were desired. He _ next directed tiie attention of their Worships to the various provisions of the Acts referring to tho adulteration of milk and tho analysing of milk that was suspected to be j adulterated. Tho facts of the case were i very simple. The inspector and Constable j Grey, meeting defendant’s milk-cart in i Walker street, purchased a sample of milk, | and as the inspector could not divide the j milk there in accordance with the Act, he did j so in his office, and forwarded the niilkjio the analyist, who found that it contained 7.1 per cent, less milk than it should have done. —Constable Hanson, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said lie had been in that position since 1882, Witness was required by some person to obtain samples of the milk sold by defendant, and got a quantity of his milk at Walker street on the sth ult. _ Defendant came out of the Royal Hotel with a can iu his hand, and witness told him that lie required a sample of the milk in his possession. There were two cans in the cart, one of which contained what looked like adulterated milk. Witness said lie required a sample of that milk, but defendant objected, stating that he bought it from a farmer. He, however, refused to tell witness the man’s name, as ho did not want to gut him into trouble. Ultimately witness obtained a sample of the milk in one of a number of bottles which had previously been cleaned. A placard bearing the name of the seller, the place where the milk was sold, and the date blank was placed on each bottle. Witness told defendant that he intended forwarding the sample to Professor Black to be analysed, and asked him whether he wished for a sample. As defendant had no separate bottle iu which the milk could be placed, he promised to come witness’s office, and arrived shortly afterwards. The bottle was corked and sealed in defendant’s presence, and was opened in his presence. Tho milk was divided, after being well shaken, and one part was handed to defendant, one was retained by witness, and tho other was forwarded to Professor Black. Defendant stated that he could not be held responsible, because there was nothing to prevent a person adulterating his milk in the dairy. On the 9th ult. defendant was shown the result of the analysis, and asked witness if he could not settle the matter with him, as he would lose all his customers if the case were brought into Court. Defendant had never, to witness’s knowledge, been prosecuted before, but had perhaps been prosecuted before witness became inspector. When the milk was purchased from defendant there were about seven or eight gallons in the can. To Mr Maegregor; Defendant said that he had purchased the bad milk from a neighboring farmer, but that the other was his own milk, and that he would prefer witness taking that milk. He also said that the milk which witness took had been standing all night.—Henry Ralfe, clerk of the Court, said that defendant was convicted in January, 1880, under the Milk Adulteration Act, 1877.—Constable Gray, who accompanied Inspector Hanson on the morning of the sth ult., corroborated his evidence, and said that just ns defendant was driving away he cried : “ There’s water in the milk ; even the cows milk water."— Professor Black said that on tho sth ult. he analysed sample No. 1, forwarded by Inspector Hanson, and found that the milk solids, not fat, amounted to only 7.5 per cent., but in other respects tiie milk was all right. The cause of the deficiency in the milk solids was the addition of water. Tho standard prescribed by the Act was a low ono, the quality of milk averaging 10 per cent. The bottles were all labelled. —Mr Maegregor contended that the information had not been correctly laid; and that Inspector Hanson had not been properly appointed, His Worship ruled that under the Interpretation Act the appointment was quite legal,— Mr Maegregor then urged that the analyst’s certificate re adulteration should have been produced, but His Worship ruled that the prosecution had done more—they had put the analyst in the witness-box.—Mr Maegregor admitted that Dr Black’s evidence was admissible, but it did not support the charge as laid. When the alleged sale was completed the inspector had not handed a sample of the milk to defendant as the Act contemplated. Mr Carew pointed out that, according to the evidence, defendant had waived his right.—Mr Haggitt replied at some length.—Their Worships, after a retirement, said that they had, not without some doubt, decided against Mr Maegregor s contention regarding the reading of the Act.—Mr Haggitt said that the Act was a copy of the English one, ■ Mr Carew asked if Mr Maegregor intended to appeal, and, if he had decided to do so, would he appeal on points of law or make a general appeal ?—Mr_Macgregor asked for a few minutes in which to consider. —Defendant was then fined L 5 Is (for the purpose of appeal), with costs, and Mr Maegregor intimated that he would decide when the other case had been disposed
of.—When the other case had been concluded he intimated that he would accept a small penalty, and would appeal on points of law, and a fine of 50s was imposed.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS—-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8034, 10 October 1889
THE COURTS—-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8034, 10 October 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.