CHEAP FRUIT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 203, 10 August 1928, Page 5

CHEAP FRUIT

SELLING ON THE STREETS PROSECUTIONS PROVE FUTILE. “A HOLE” FOUND IN BY-LAWS. Recently there have been several sales of fruit from stands on the main streets of the borough of Hastings. At the sitting ot the Magistrate’s Court this morning, bet ore Mr. A, M. Mowlem, S.M., the borough inspector (Mr. J. R. Dunnett} proceeded against F. Connor, W Guppg and F. O. Foddy, on charges of being licensed to hawk fruit but not having permission to sell on the streets, they did so on various dates.

Three charges were laid against Connor and Guppy and one against Foddy Mr. E. J. W. Hallett appeared for the defendant, Connor, who pleaded not guilty. Counsel suggested that one charge be proceeded with and should a conviction be entered then a plea ot guilty would be made in respect to the other cases. This course was adopted. Mr. H. Holderness, on behalf of the borough, stated that the charge was laid under the by-laws. He explained that al! hawkers were required to obtain a license. Hawkers, However, were not allowed to stand on the street without a permit. They might stand on the street just so long as was necessary for the transaction of business with a customer. He must then move on. The present defendant was licensed as a hawker but had no special permit to take up a stand on the street to sell fruit. Inspector Dunnett gave evidence to the effect that on June 29, the defendant made application to witness for a permit to sell fruit on the streets. Witness told him that under the by-laws the permit could not be granted. Defendant had not been allotted a stand and witness saw the defendant sell oranges from a stand. On the requests of witness, the defendant moved on to various stands. There were certain periods when the defendant was not actually selling but merely awaiting cuntomers. To Mr. Hallett witness stated that the defendant moved on when requested. On each instance that witness saw the defendant there were customers in the vicinity of the stand.

This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. Hallett stated that on the evidence of tie cross-examination alone the case should lie dismissed, ft was clear that the defendant was stationary only when there were customers about. This was the evidence given by the inspector. Counsel contended that there were no conditions endorsed on the license issued, it was contended that the license, unendorsed, constituted a permit according to the by-laws. His Worship contended that on the evidence the prosecution had not proved its case and the information wns dismissed.

The prosecution then proceeded with a second charge against the same defendant, the evidence and pleas beirfp similar to that of the first case. “I am quite clear in my own mind that the local authority endeavoured to cover the position, but I am afraid the present defendant has found a hole in the bv-law,” commented His Worship in dismissing the information. The prosecution withdrew the remainder of the cases. 1910 BY-LAWS. “When were the by-laws drawn up,” asked His Worship. Inspector Dunnett: In 1910 Sir. “Well, it is high time in 1928 that they be revised.” said Mr. Mowlem. Mr. Hallett: No doubt the borough solicitor will agree with that. Sir. (Laughter}. His Worship: And you, of course, will not.