CREAM WITHOUT PERMIT

Evening Star, Issue 25802, 27 May 1946, Page 4

CREAM WITHOUT PERMIT

DAIRY COMPANY CHARGED CONSUMERS ALSO PROSECUTED The supplying of cream without a permit from tne food controller to various city hotels, tea rooms, milk supply companies, dairies, stores, and ice cream factory, and to a private individual led to a charge against the Taieri and Peninsula Milk Supply Co. Ltd. in the Police Court to-day. The total amount of cream supplied by the company between December 1, 1945, and February 9 was 827 J gallons, and the informations were brought under the Rationing Emergency Regulations, 1942. The company, which was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, pleaded not guilty, but after certain evidence submitted by counsel had been overruled by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., a ?lea of guilty was entered, the quesion of penalty, being held over by the magistrate until charges against the concerns and individuals supplied with cream had been heard this alfternoon. _ Charges of a breach of the regulations were brought against the following parties (the number of pints allegedly received by them without a permit being given in parenthesis):— Annie Blaney/ licensee of Tattersall's Hotel (28J); Reginald Charles Taylor, licensee of the Terminus Hotel (15J); Norman Stewart, licensee of the Law Courts Hotel (187); James William Young, licensee of the Excelsior Hotel (24); William Ray Kemp, storekeeper, 53 Chapman street (93J); Wilham McNeil Gamble, manager of store at 47 Driver street, St. Kilda (106|); Minnie Agnes Don, storekeeper, 33 Walton street, Roslyn (129); Carl William Wessman, storekeeper, 468 George street (114 f): Tamar Letitia Shaw, storekeeper, 428 King street (111 J); James Alexander Hunter, storekeeper, Kaikorai Valley road (727 and 441|) ; Evelyn Wilson (14J) ; the Savoy Ltd. (386); Lucy Scott, Hydro Tea Rooms, St. Clair (103); Irene Isobel Johnston, cake shop, 600 Cargill road (8); Matilda Ellen Clark, storekeeper, 321 Shetland street, Kaikorai (24); the Dairy Farmers' Co-operative Milk Supply Ltd. (293); New Joy Ice Cream Co. Ltd. (293), and the Dunedin Wholesale Milk Supply Ltd. (520). Chief-detective T. Y. Hall conducted the prosecution. Ernest James Hope, a rationing inspector employed by the. Food Controller, said he made an investigation of the books of the company, and found that from December 1, 1945, until February 9, 1946, a large quantity of cream was supplied to persons not holding the necessary permits to receive it. The total amount of cream that had been delivered to the consumers concerned, according to the company's books, was 150 gallons. The managing director of the company, Mr F. L. Nicolson, had admitted to witness on March 11 that cream had been delivered without a permit. ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS.

Counsel challenged, the inspector's right to take possession of the company's books (produced, in court) for the purpose of inspecting the items relating to cream, and after the magistrate had granted a short adjournment to enable the inspector to produce his authority to do so, issued by the Food Controller, Mr Anderson submitted that the authority only allowed documents to be produced and not impounded. .Witness said that Mr Nicolson was not in Dunedin when the books were taken away, and he had obtained them from the accountant. Mr Nicolson had given witness permission to examine the company's books,, but he could not remember him saying that he was not to take, the company's books away from the office. The period of investigation of the cream deliveries extended from December, 1945, to February 9 of this year. Detective A. 'W. McDougall said that on April 6 he interviewed Nicolson concerning 827 J gallons of cream supplied to persons not having the necessary permits to procure cream. .Witness showed him the schedule listing the Eersons and the amounts of cream they ad received. He was very frank, and admitted selling the cream in contravention of the regulations. He had stated that after .December he had been faced with the position of supplying cream or losing customers. Early in December he had called his roundsmen together and informed them that over the Christmas period they were to relax the controls on the supply of cream. After that stage the position of the supplies of cream went out of hand. Mr Nicolson had taken the attitude that other milk suppliers were releasing cream. STATEMENT WITHOUT WARNING.

Questioned by Mr Anderson; the detective said he had not issued 'the usual warning before taking the statement, and he added that in • proceedings of this particular nature he did not regard it as necessary to do so. Mr Anderson commented on what he described as two " amazing features " of the prosecution's case. He submitted that it was highly improper for a State department officer to obtain books, of a company from a junior employee for use in what was a quasipenal charge. The regulations provided no authority for the taking over and impounding of books as was done in this case. As far as the statement taken by Detective McDougall was concerned, the rationing authorities had referred the alleged breaches to the police, and it was natural to assume that a charge against the company was contemplated. That being so, it was clearly the detective's duty to warn Mr Nicolson that any statement he made might be used in evidence against. him. Therefore, counsel submitted, the statement could not properly be tendered in evidence -against him. The Chief Detective claimed that counsel was attempting to draw a red herring across the trail. The police in criminal cases had power to produce the books of a company by a search warrant, and, in effect, the authority of the rationing inspector was a search warrant. , OBJECTIONS OVERRULED. The Magistrate said it had. been stated that the books of the company had been obtained without specific authority. This action must be approached in a reasonable light. In a sense, the handing over of the books was not for the purpose of proving a case, but for elucidating the position. He could not agree that the books were handed over without authority. Counsel had formally objected to the production of the books, and this objection would be overruled. Regarding the propriety or otherwise of the statement being obtained by Detective McDougall, the Magistrate said that the company was charged and not Nicolson, who was merely elucidating the position over the admitted supply of cream. An objection that had been entered by counsel would also be overruled. Mr Anderson then changed the plea of the company to one of guilty, and [said that until December of last year

no difficulty was experienced in administering the cream controls. After that period, however, the position, as in other parts of the Dominion, had gone out of control. Counsel suggested that the practice that had been adopted of taking the books away without a permit was not consistent with the assistance given the rationing authorities by the managing director.

'The Magistrate then reserved the question of penalty.