WRONG LAMB SOLD

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6867, 23 March 1929, Page 17 (Supplement)

WRONG LAMB SOLD

American for New Zealand PLYMOUTH FIRM FINED An advertisement in October announcing the sale of new season’s Canterbury lamb, led to the successful prosecution of a butcher by the New Zealand Meat Board. As the new season docs not open in New Zealand until November the advertisement was palpably false. The case was heard at the Plymouth Police Court last week and the allegation was made against a well-known firm, Alford’s Stores, Limited, that they sold South American lamb for New Zealand lamb. The case was heard before the magistrate, Mr. A. E. Wonnacott, and Captain E. M. Lecst. Mr. G. D. Roberts prosecuted on behalf of the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board, and Mr A. K. Hamilton-Akaster appeared for defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Outlining the case, Mr. Roberts said the attention of the board was called to the defendants bv an advertisement which appeared on October IS, 1925, in which various meats were offered for sale. Among these was new season Canterbury lamb at Is. 2d. per lb. This appeared odd, as new season Canterbury lamb did not reach England late in December, or early in January, and, in consequence, investigations were made. Mr. S. L. A. .Mastin, an official of tho board, visited the store with his wife, and asked for a leg of New Zealand lamb. He was eventually given a leg of South American lamb, and w r as assured that it was Now Zealand lamb, and he was charged Is. 2d. per lb. for it.

Carcase Stamped “Uruguay.” “My wife asked for a leg of New Zealand lamb,” said Mr. Mastin. “The salesman brought a leg which he said was English. My wife insisted that she should have New Zealand lamb, and tho salesman then brought out a carcase on which wins clearly stamped tho word ‘Uruguay,’ which indicated that it was South American lamb. I then inquired if it was New Zealand lamb, and the man replied, ‘Yes, sir, guaranteed New Zealand.’ The joint wtas then cut off and handed to me, and I was charged Is. 2d. a lb.” Witness added that Canterbury lamb meant exclusively New Zealand lamb. Cross-examined by Mr. HamiltonAkaster, witness agreed there was no attempt at concealment of the sign on the lamb. Re-examined by Mr. Roberts witness said the sign “Uruguay” would probably convey nothing to the average member of tlic public. Dorothy Mastin, wife of the previous witness, corroborated. Robert Sutherland Eorsyth, of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, said Canterbury lamb in October last year in England was impossible, for the first shipment to England did not arrive until Christmas Eve. A Direct Denial. “The defence is a direct denial that this misrepresentation ever took place, or that any. article was sold to the prejudice of tho purchaser,” said Mr. Hamilton-Akaster. “There has been no reliable evidence that the mispresentation has taken place. All that we have had are the statements of Mr. and Mrs. Mastin, who, in fairness, should have told the salesman he had mado a mistake, and given the firm a fair to answer the charge. As it was, tho firm did not hear anything of the alleged offence until a week after it was supposed to have been committed, and they had no chance at all of discovering whether South American lamb had really been sold for Canterbury lamb. _ “I complain very bitterly of this affair and malicious prosecution. ho added. “If people can make charges in this way, then not a single tradesman in this city is safe.” Reginald Owen Bu-rows, a foreman in the butchery shop of Alford s Stores said: “We sell no Canterbury lamb in October, and we have instructions to sell what lamb wc have as it it marked. Uruguay lamb would bsold as imported lamb. The advertisement offering Canterbury lamb was a mistake. He agreed it was a false statement and a very serious mistake After a brief retirement the Benci, imposed a fine of £5 and ordered defendants to pay £lO toward the costs.