A TON OF BAD FISH.

Evening Star, Issue 11678, 10 February 1902, Page 4

A TON OF BAD FISH.

SEIZED AND CONDEMNED. THE FREEZER BROKE DOWN. SO THE OWNER~IS LET OFF WITH COSTS. This morning Inspector Gunn, an officer under the Public Health Act of 1900, found a quantity of unsound fish, principally ling and groper, upon the presses in Lower Stuart street occupied by Charles Georgeson. Some of the fish was in a freezer. The worst of it was in a very bad condition, offensive to the eye and repulsive in smell. An information against Mr Georgeson was sworn before Air Graham, S.M., whilst the Court was sitting, and during the luncheon hour His Worship visited tlie place himself. At 2 p.m. Georgeson was brought up at the Court and charged with being the occupier of fish-freezing works in Stuart street and having in his possession certain unsound and unwholesome fish, unfit for human consumption, and which was intended to be sold tor human consumption. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Fraser said; I appear for the Public Health Officer. The information is laid under sections 86 and 87 of the Public Health Act. .Section 87 provides that food which is diseased or unsound or unwholesome or unfit for human consumption may be seized by an inspector under the Public Health Act, and that the inspector can bring the article before a stipendiary magistrate, who has power to condemn it and direct it to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of at the expense of the defendant, and fix the expense incurred in seizing and keeping the article and require the defendant to pay the same, and the magistrate may also impose a penalty not exceeding £2O. The iniorlnation iff this case is laid in respect to a certain quantity of fish—l think over a ton in weight—in the freezing works of the defendant in Lower Stuart street. The inspector of public health, who acts under Dr Ogston, who by the way is absent from town, inspected defendant’s fish freezer, and found there a very large quantity of fish—in fact, almost the whole of it there —absolutely unsound and unfit for human consumption. Your Worship has seen the fish during the adjournment; I also saw it; and there is no doubt that without explanation it is a very bad case. There is, however, an explanation by the defendant, which I put forward for what it is worth. The defendant alleges that he was working shorthanded and that during the recent hot weather the freezing machine broke down. I must add this; that from my knowledge of the working of a freezer 1 should say that in this instance much remains to be desired in the direction of cleanliness and order*. It is not in the interests of the public health to have fish in this condition, and I am glad that the inspector has taken the matter up. I apply for an order that the fish seized be condemned and that defendant pay the expense of destroying it. The Act also provides for a penalty, but that is a matter entirely in your Worship’s hands. You have seen the premises and can probably endorse what I have said. I was a good deal shocked myself at what I saw. His Worship: Now, Georgeson, you have heard what Mr Fraser has said. What have you to say? Defendant: Some time ago the hot weather set in and we were keeping the machine going, but the tanks burst. We got them patched, and they burst a second time, and delay took place. Nobody could have dome more than was done. I had men working night and day, but in the hot weather the temperature thawed down too fast for us. Burnside was shut down too, and Port Chalmers was shat down except for one or two days in the week. There was no possibility of saving it. His Worship: You have pleaded guilty, but .you hares gmea ~a^,«^^an^^;foEgt«e:

reasonableness of which much can b© said, and inasmuch as yon have been pat to heavy pecuniary loss Defendant: About £7O. His Worship: Well, you will have to be at the cost of the removal of the fish and its destruction, and of course the cosrs of this application, so I do siot tnmJt '■ would,be justified in addin;' a penally. If I thought that there had bean any culpable negligence on your part 1 would nave inflicted a penalty as wall, because it is necessary to protect articles of food. I do not, however, think that there has been culpable negligence on your part, aud I therefore inflict only the nominal fine of Is and order that the fish be condemned and adequate measures taken for its destruction and that you pay all these charges and the cost of these proceedings. At Mr Fraser’s application the fixing of the sum for charges was left over till Wednesday, so as to see what the expenses come to.