MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 September 1940, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., presided at to-day’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth. Senior Sergeant G. F. Bonisch represented the police. ’ On the information of the Borough Traffic Inspector (Mr. H. Lane), Clifford Mundy, John Douglas- Hart and Albert. Panther were each fined 10/-, with 10/- costs for cycling at night without lights. . William Lawrence Carr pleaded guilty to a charge that, on or about December 6, 1938, at Reefton, he did deliver a .303 calibre rifle to Jim Slade, without a permit. Senior Sergeant Bonisch said that defendant was. the registered owner of a .303 rifle, which he registered at Reefton on August 8, 1936. During the past three weeks the police had been engaged on a check-up of rifles, for a certain purpose, and the records showed that defendant was still the Owner, of the rifle. Vyhen interviewed, however, he admitted that -about two years ago’he had sold the rifle to a man named Slade. This man was now with the forces, but before he left lie gave the rifle, along with other effects, to a man named Harris, in payment of a debt, again without a permit. It was possible that other proceedings would be taken concerning this transaction and that forfeiture of the rifle would then be sought. The rifle had subsequently been located in Harris’s possession, at Lewis Pass.

Defendant’s action was looked upon as rather a serious matter, especially now when the authorities wanted to know the location and condition of all rifles. However,‘when interviewed, defendant gave all the assistance he possibly could in locating the rifle. Defendant said that when Slade wanted to buy the rifle he 1 (defendant) had interviewed the Sergeant of Police at Reefton, who had told him to give the registration papers and rifle to Slade and it wopld be all right, and he had heard nothing after doing so. The Senior Sergeant said that, unless there was good reason, the transfer of a rifle was never refused, but the purchaser must first have a permit to buy and it had to be endorsed on the back by the vendor. The S.M. said it appeared that defendant did try to put the matter m oi’der by seeing the sergeant of police, but then handed over the rifle before the purchaser obtained a permit. The Senior Sergeant said he did not doubt that defendant interviewed the Sergeant, but neither he nor Slade carried out the instructions that would be given. ’ The S.M. said the fact that defendant interviewed the sergeant did not absolve him, but it showed intention, and under the circumstances he would be fined 10/-, with 10/- costs.

A TRIPE CASE. Gordon Joseph Dick, trading as J. Dick and Sons, butchers, Greymouth, was charged, on the information of the Medical Officer of Health, Christchurch, that, on. June 24, 1940, at Greymouth, he did sell a sample of tripe containing a preservative substance, namely a boron compound, which is not specifically allowed and is therefore prohibited by regulation 10 (1) of the regulations made under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. Defendant was represented by Mr. A. M. Jamieson, who entered a plea of guilty. Senior Sergeant Bonisch, who prosecuted on behalf of the Medical Officer of Health, said that about 3.30 p.m. on June 24, Mr. Linford, an inspector for the Health Department, purchased a sample of tripe from defendant, for the purpose of having it analysed. The analysis showed that it contained a preservative, boric acid, and the addition to tripe of boric acid, or any preservative of the kind, was prohibited under the regulations. All butchers in the Christchurch Health District were circularised on December 2, 1938, drawing their attention to this fact, so that it was no excuse for defendant to say that he Was not aware that it was an offence. The Health Officer had assured him (the Senior Sergeant) that the other butchers in Greymouth had received the letter, so that it was prima facie that defendant had also received it. In addition to whatever penalty the S.M. might see fit to impose he (the Senior Ser-r geant) had been instructed to ask for the analyst’s fee of 10/6.

Mr. Jamieson said that as far as the warning letter was concern'ed, defendant was equally certain that he did not receive it. About that time, he had transferred his business from Reefton to Greymouth and'it was possible that the letter had gone to Reefton. The S.M. would recall that last Wednesday he heard similar cases at Westport, when evidence was called from Dr. Thomson and he (the S.M.), according to the newspaper report, then observed that boric acid appeared to be a /‘harmless concoction.”

The S.M.: No, Mr. Jamieson, I did not say that. Continuing, Mr. Jamieson said that he had merely quoted the S.M.’s remarks from the newspaper report. Defendant been a butcher for 20 years and had never previously been before the Court. In view of this, and the fact that it was probably the first charge of its kind in Greymouth, he (Mr. Jamieson) would ask that the S.M. treat it as a warning and deal with it the same as he had done in Westport. The S.M. said that, in Westport, the cases had been formally defended to enable evidence to be tendered and medical evidence was called. The evidence before the Court was that the proportion of boric acid in the tripe was very small and the medical evidence was to the effect that boric was allowed in some foodstuffs. It was made to appear that the amount of acid to the pound of tripe was very small and also in comparison with the amount/allowed in some foods. It was also pointed out that the tripe would be cooked and in the boiling process the amount of acid would be lessened, so he (the S.M.) took the view that there had been a breach of the regulations, and what he said was if the quantity used was as small as the medical evidence indicated, and it was the universal practice to use the preparation which was put on the market, the proper course would be for those interested to take steps to have its use permitted. The newspaper report was entirely wrong when it said that he (the S.M.), had described it as a' harmless concoction. What he had said was that if the preparation was as harmless as the evidence before him had stated, there should be no difficulty in having it made allowable. He , had convicted the Westport defendants and ordered them to pay the analyst’s fee, and he would do the same in the present

case. Defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay the analyst’s fee, 10/6. CIVIL CLAIM. In claim, Grey County Council v. Edward Patterson, judgment was given for plaintiff, by default, for £ll/6/5, with costs £2/14/-.