Unrationed Meat Charges

Northern Advocate, 18 February 1946, Page 4

Unrationed Meat Charges

Allegations that compliance with rationing regulations created difficulties for butchers, were made during the hearing of a case in the Whangarei Court today. Timewell and King. Ltd., was prosecuted on six charges of acquiring rationed goods from another person prohibited from supplying them, and one charge of failing to mark on carcases of beef and mutton the weights of the bodies. All charges, with the. exception of that relating to the marking of weights, were admitted. Taken in conjunction with these charges were six charges brought against William Arthur Griffiths, manager of the Whangarei municipal abattoirs. of supplying rationed goods to Timewell and King.. Ltd., otherwise than in accordance with the Rationing Emergency Regulations and without the authority of a permit granted by the controller. Griffiths denied the charges. BEHIND IN APPLICATIONS Timewell and King. Ltd., conducted three butchers’ shops in Whangarei. and were governed by procedure in acquiring meat, supplies, said Detective Sergeant J. B. Finlay, who prosecuted. A permit for obtaining meat was obtained and remained current until the meat allotment had been used, a replacement then being issued on application. The firm had got behind in its applications. but had continued to obtain its meat requirements. Griffiths committed an offence by supplying meat without authority. The charge of failing to mark weights on carcases had been brought because the firm had not carried out this provision. The magistrate: The controller has complete dictatorship of the meat trade? Mr. Finlay: He is given power under the regulations. Where meat is not weighed at an abattoir it has to be weighed by the butcher, and the carcases marked with the weight. The magistrate: It is not much good marking the weight on a carcase if it is cut up for sale. It would be better to enter the weight in a book. Mr. Finlay: The weights are also entered in a book. An inspector had found the carcases were not marked when they were ready for distribution to the firm's other shops, he continued. The prosecution had been taken to tighten up the meat marketing regulations, which, had been instituted to prevent trafficking in rationed goods, or black marketing. NO TRAFFICKING In this case, however, there was no suggestion of trafficking. The penalty provided for each charge was a fine of £IOO or three months' imprisonment. The magistrate said that the provisions quoted by the prosecution applied to a rural slaughterhouse and not to an abattoir where there were no scales, as at Whangarei. Mr. Finlay: Apparently the authorities did not visualise an abattoir without scales. For the firm. Mr. D. L. Ross said that it had not been felt there was any obligation on the firm to mark meat, the magistrate concurring and dismissing the charges relating to marking. Concerning the six other charges against the firm, Mr Ross said there was no suggestion that there had been any trafficking in meat or that any harm had been done. The firm had merely drawn on its supply before the formula set out by the regulations had been completed. Compliance with the regulations created many difficulties, the firm practically having to keep another set of books. EXTRA WORK

■ This work, and that of counting coupons, took so much lime that before another permit could be obtained further meat supplies were needed. It was practically impossible to comply with the exact letter of the regulations and as long as (here wap no sinister intent, which was not; suggested in this case, the court could have regard to butchers' difficulties. Details of difficulties besetting butchers in abiding by the regulations were given in evidence by the firm’s accountant, Adam Wells. Rationing had reduced the firm’s meat supply from IO.OOOIbs a week to 13,0001b5. Dealing with rationing requirements took up more time than keeping the ordinary books, he said. While rationing created difficulties for Timewell and King. Ltd., it made many more difficulties for Griffiths, said Mr D. J. Thomson, who appeared for Griffiths. For 29 years Griffiths had been contractor at the Whangarei abattoir, each month killing approximately 250 cattle and 1000 sheep. He cculd only comply with the regulations by rising at 3 a.m. and working to 6 p.m. Special dispensation had been given for the meat to leave the abattoir unweighed as there were no scales. The Borough Council had placed an order for scales but had only been able to secure a set on loan. At the present time scales were not allowed to be i exported from Britain. OBJECT TO FEED PEOPLE

For Griths, who was killing for 10 butchers, to comply with the regulations was virtually impessibio. Mi- Thomson contended. No permit was in existence when stock was slaughtered, but they had to be killed just the same. Although Griffiths was technically guilty li had a lawful excuse.

"Anyone who reads the papers must have the opinion that rationing is necessary,'’ said the magistrate. "It seems to me that the people of the Dominion shold have a reasonable supply and that the people of the Dominion should have a reasonable supply and that the Government should control , reserves to alleviate the shortage overseas. "It is quite clear that the object cf the regulations is to feed people and not to make it more difficult for the public to get meat.

"If Griffiths had sat on the letter of the law the people would have received no meat, at least for the first three days of the week. "Timewell and King have satisfied me that whatever may be said in the case for ffie rationing controller, there must be a day or two of overlap. If everybody sat on the dignity and letter of the regulations it would only increase the number of days the public would not get meat.” The magistrate said that Griffiths was technically guilty of a breach but he did not see what Griffiths could have done, and therefore he would be convicted and discharged. Timewell and King Ltd. had allowed too much of a time lag in some cases and had to realise it had to be as prompt as possible in applying for permits. The firm required a polite nudge for not keeping up to dale, but there was no suggestion that meat had been improperly acquired or improperly used, and it would be fined £1 with 10/- costs on one charge and convicted and discharged on the others.