UNSOUND FOOD PRODUCTS

Evening Star, Issue 12883, 4 August 1906, Page 12

UNSOUND FOOD PRODUCTS

The Auckland District Health Officer (Dr Frengley) laid informations against Robert Fumes.*, jam manufacturer, of Fort street, last month, under section 87 of the Public Health Act, 1900, that unsound fruit and pulp were deposited in his factory for the purpose of preparation for sale for human consumption. The ciise came on first on the 27th ult., when Mr Buddo, on behali of defendant, pleaded not guilty. Mr Selwyn Mays, who conducted the prosecution on Ijehalf of the Crown Solicitor, asked that the magistrate (Mr R. W. Dyer) might visit and inspect the factory and pulp' in que.-tion, as provided by the Act. Yesterday, when the caso again came before Mr Dyer, S.M.. defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty. Mr Buddo argued in extenuation of the plea of guilty that defendant was ignorant of the fact"that the law prevented him from retaining unsound food material on his premises, and handed in a declaration signed by defendant and his manager to the effect that both wen ienorant ,of the requirements of the Publu Health Act, and that immediately any fruitor pulp was discovered to. bo unsound it. had been the custom to destroy it. It was not used in food manufactured. Thi defendant's counsel pleaded, further, that his client had previously given his manager specific notice to' that" effect, so that the quality of the articles nronufactured might be kept up. Anything of an unsound nature was never used m making products for sale. Mr S. Mays, for the prosecution, pointed out that it would be well for all manufacturers of food products to study closely the provisions of the Public Health Act. The law absolutely prohibited the : retention on any premises of any food and" food material unround or unfit for human consumption. Tho magistrate ascertained from Air Mays that, excepting a prosecution in regard to unsound tish, this was tho first prosecution of the kind in the Auckland district. He then convicted defendant, and ordered (in terms of section 87) that the remainder of the pulp be inspected by Dr Frengley, and if any wss found unsound it should be condemned and destroyed. He added that had it not been for the fact that since the proceedings commenced defendant had removed and destroyed so much unwholesome pulp, he might not have inflicted a penalty. In the circumstances, and this beinc the first case, he would inflict a fine of £5, with £2 9s cost 1 ?. In doing so, he trusted that this prosecution would be the, means of warnino all those'" who manufactured food for human consumption that they must comply with the Health Act.