CONFECTIONERS CONVICTED

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 February 1928, Page 2

CONFECTIONERS CONVICTED

“RUM AND BUTTER TOFFEE”? In the appeal case Riley Bros. (H^ ifax), Limited V. Halliffiond—The Court, by a majority dismissed an appeal by way of case stated a decision, of the Bishop Auckland, Duiham, justices, who convicted the appellants and fined them 40/- on an information under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act for giving a false warranty in respect of “rum and butter toffee. The respondent, an inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, brought' from a retail confectioner for analysis a tin of “Riley’s Rum and Butter Toffee,” and complied with the required formalities. After analysis of the toffee a summons Was taken out- against the confectioner for selling to the prejudice of the purchaser i an article not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the purchaser. The manufacturers, the present appellants, then took responsibility, for they had supplied it with a warranty, and these proceedings were then instituted against them for giving a false warranty. • The analysis showed that the toffee in question contained both rum and butter, and had the flavour of both, but that it contained, in addition, a certain larger percentage of coconut fat, which was used to prevent the consistency of the toffee being unduly sticky. There was evidence that the flavour of rum and butter could bo ; produced by synthetic flavours, and in that case it would be properly called “rum and butter flavoured toffee,’’ but not “rum and butter toffee.” Toffee made with no fat but butter would be greasy both to touch and taste, and toffee made in part with coconut fat had been sold for years as “rum and butter toffee.” Mr Justice Talbot said that the majority of the Court were in favour of supporting the conviction, but he was unable to arrive at that conclusion. He thought “rum and butter toffee” meant toffee with a substantial amount of rum and butter in it, and that the appellants should have been acquitted. Mr Justice Branson thought that the conviction was right. The case turned on the construction of the description given by the appellants. Toffee was something which could be made with, various fats, and if toffee was described as "butter toffoe” he thought butter was indicated as the fat used exclusively. • Mr Justice Avory delivered judgment agreeing with Mr Justice Branson.