ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 9471, 16 August 1894, Page 3

ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT.

TO THB KDITOB. Sir,—Mr A. J. Larking's letter in last night's issue makes public one of the hardships the poor shopkeepers have to suffer. That Mr Larking should have to bear the odium of imprisonment, wear prison clothes, mix and do the ordinary prison work with criminals seems harsh and unjust. Mr Larking's crime is selling adulterated cream of tartar, which he purchased in the ordinary course of business, and sold believing to be '' pure " cream of tartar. The difference in our cases from Mr Larking's is that we purchased from different merchants. The cr«am of tartar we sold was in an original package, and had no appearance of being tampered with since it left the manufacturer in London. To our mind, the authorities should have had these goods analysed when passing through the Customs. The merchants may land and sell these goods by the ton; the shopkeeper is punished for selling them in pennyworths. The law gives the shopkeeper no redress against the merchant; thus we have had to pay to the tune of £8 4s 6d into court or suffer as Mr Larking did. Up to the present we have had no allowance made to us by the merchants who sold us the goods. We told Mr Hansen, the inspector, when wo sold him the cream of tartiir and pepper, that thoy were pure, where wo purchased them from, and what we paid for them. The funny part is that had we told the inspector tb.6 goods ware adulterated he would have had no case against us. As the law now*gives no redress to the shopkeeper we think the Colopjal Sjeoretary

should remit tho lines imposed against tli S grocers in both batch of cases recently tired the stipendiary magistrate in the Police lirfc. We wrote Mr Pinkerton, M.H.R., on. the subject a few weeks ago, but as yet have had no reply. What redress can be now given to .Mr Larking is very hard to say.—We are, etc., Mercer Bros. Dunedin, August 16.