“EXTREME CARELESS NESS”

Evening Star, Issue 19410, 19 November 1926, Page 6

“EXTREME CARELESS NESS”

WAITATI BUTCHERS FINED DISEASED CARCASE NOT DESTROYED Three informations under the Slaughter-house Act were heard at the City Police Court to-day. when Oram and Beer were charged that being the licensees of a slaughter-house at Waitati they had failed to destroy a diseased carcase in such a way that, it could not be used for human consumption. Other charges against _ defendants were that they had failed to keep their knives, saw. and cleaver clean, and that they had failed to stamp on every quarter of a carcase the official .registered number. Mr J. MacParlane appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Inspector Fountain said that on October 7 he visited defendant’s registered slaughter-house and found the carcase of a cow in a diseased condition. In looking around for the offal he traced it to a neighboring farmhouse, where it was being boiled for the purpose of feeding fowls and pigs. The carcase had been slaughtered in the approved manner and properly dressed. Everything pointed to the fact that it was intended for human consumption. The animal had been killed on October 4, and witness inspected the premises three days later. Defendants were on the telephone, and it was their duty to report any irregularity. The butcher employed was a practical man, and must have known the beast was diseased. _ Compensation was allowed for any diseased animal killed in a slaughter-house. This was an encouragement for licensees to report to the department any diseased animal. The animal should have been removed immediately after it had been slaughtered, but in this case the carcase had remained for four days. On October 4 two cows had been killed, according to defendants’ hooks, but the saw, cleaver, and knives had not been cleaned, as he found them three days afterwards. He visited the butcher s shop carried on by defendants, and ho found two quarters of a cow that did not bear the registered brand._ There were some sheep carcases with the brand on them. Witness asked defendants’ bucher how he was off for beef. He replied that he had plenty, and that he intended giving it to the dogs. He was lead to believe that the licensee knew all about the condition of the animal. The matter had not been reported, although defendant was in Dunedin on the same day witness was in Waitati. AVitness said that if he had not visited the place the diseased animal would have been distributed amongst the farmers of the district. Mr M'Farlane said defendants had purchased two cows, and removed them to the slaughter-house. One of the animals had been found to he diseased, and therefore it had not been cut up. The slaughtering took place at 6 p.m. on October 5, the stock not having been purchased until that day. The defendant Oram would state that he came into Dunedin on the following day, and it was his intention ,of informing the defendant, but he had trouble with, his car, and he forgot to do so. When he returned he discovered that the inspector had called, and he did not think that it was then necessary to take any steps to inform the department. , T t George Watt, a butcher, employed by the defendants, said that he had taken delivery of the cows from the Evansdale Saleyards on October 5, taking them straight to the slaughter-yards. He first killed a cow, which was found to be diseased, and was left hanging whole. The other cow, which was free from disease, was killed and stamped in tlie ordinary way. As far as the condemned beast was concerned, there was no intention of putting it in the shop, and it was going to be destroyed. After the condemned beast was cut down witness washed the two knives and a sword, which had been used in the killing, with cold water, there being no hot water at the yards. It was his practice as a rule to scald his tools with hot water after each killing. The reason he had not disposed of the diseased beast was that he thought it would have to be inspected. The provisions of the Act in regard to stamping, as far as witness was concerned, had been complied with. , To Mr Fountain: AVitness killed the diseased cow first, and then killed the other one, but he denied that he was in a hurry to get the beef to the shop. In further cross-examination, witness said that ho knew the beast in question was diseased, and had reported the matter to his employer. Mr Fountain: AVhat were you going to do with the offal? AVitness: I was going to give it to the dogs. Mr Fountain: You were going to give the offal to the dogs. AVitness: Yes. Mr Fountain: I think that the “ dogs ” in this case were human beings. AVitness; No.

To Mr Fountain: Witness said that in cutting up the carcase he might send out a piece with the brand on it. • Re-examined by Mr MocFarlane, witness said that he did not know of any recognised method for dealing with the implements used for cutting up. _ Ernest Clifford Beer, a partner in the defendant firm, gave corroborative evidence as to the buying and killing of the two beasts. Watt said that_ there was nothing else to do but to kill the other beast, which was left hanging. Defendant admitted that he should nave notified the inspector. The carcass was ultimately buried after it had been split down and quartered into pieces to be carried away. The general practice to keep the implements thoroughly clean was to wash them thoroughly in hot water if they were dry, ihough; cold water was sufficient when the implements were wet Witness had nothing to do with the stamping of this beast, but it was the practice to stamp before the meat was hung up. The offal was run into a gnlly and left there.

To Mr Fountain: In the event, of two cows being taken to the slaughter-house in one day one would he grazed for a day or two in an adjoining paddock. Witness had the telephone bureau under his charge, but he had intended notifying the inspector personally. The Magistrate said he would accept with some little doubt defendant’s explanation that the meat was not intended for human consumption, but the whole circumstances under which the beast had been killed showed extreme carelessness, ft was most important that the inspector should be notified of any diseased beast, and it was extraordinary that an experienced butcher should leave a beast ip such a state in the slaughter-house and take no steps to dispose of the offal. Under such circumstances the offal should have been destroyed. Defendants were convicted on the first charge and fined £lO and 7s costs! Defendants were convicted without penalty on the other two charges.

Two battered old wrecks were sitting on a bench in the common, when one remarked: “I’m a mam who never took advice from anybody.” “Shake, brother,” said the other. “Fm a man who followed everybody’s advice.” Mrs Carney rushed into her living room. “Oh, Walter,” she cried, as she panted for breath. “ I dropped my ring off my finger, and I can’t find it anywhere.” “It’s all right ; Olive,” said Walter, “ I came across it in my trousers pficket ”