POLICE COURT.—Tuesday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4294, 18 August 1875, Page 3

POLICE COURT.—Tuesday.

[Before J. SI. PargaTlllo and J. Cosgrave, Ksqs., Justices.] Drunkenness.—Five persons, for this offence, were dealt with in the ordinary manner. Breach of Prisons Act.—George North, a lad of about 18 years of age, was brought up on a charge of a breach of the Prisons Act, 1873, by dropping a plug of tobacco on the road where the prisoners were at work on tho 10th instant. Inspector Broham stated that tho lad belonged to tho ship Lutterworth, and that the captain of that vessel had given him a very fail character. The prisoner was discharged with a caution. Citv By-laws.—William Lestrange was charged with a breach of By-law No. 1, by allowing the chimney of premises occupied by him in Karaugahape Koad to catch fire on the 12th instant. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was ordered to pay a fine of 5s and costs. The defendant stated that he was unable to pay the fine, and the Bench, in consideration of his indigent condition, and of its being his first offence, discharged him, with a caution that if the offence was repeated he would bo more severely dealt with. Dor. Nuisance Act.—Frederick Lincoln, for a breach of this Act, by allowing his dog to be at large on unenclosed land off Ponsonby without having a ticket for the year 1875 attached to his collar, was fined 2s Cd and costs. Adulteration of Milk Act.—William Charles Campbell was charged with infringing the provisions of the abovo Act by selling milk adulterated with water on the sth inst. Mr. W. Thorne appeared for the defendant, and admitted the charge, but pleaded not guilty in order that he might be heard for the defence. Nonstable Graham was called and deposed : Kemembered the morning of the sth inst. Saw a lad named Godfrey Tait selling milk to his wife on that day. After his wife had made her purchase he asked the lad to sell him half-a-pint, at the same time stating that it was bought for the Eurpose of being analysed. The lad had cen in tho habit of supplying milk to witness's wife. The price charged was 5d per quart. Asked the lad to accompany him to tho analyst's office, but he said lie could not. Then told him to inform Mr. Campbell of what had transpired, to which he replied that the milk was sold as a mixture, lie (witness) then said, "A mixture of what?'" The boy replied, "A mixture of milk and water." In answer to Mr. Thorne, witness stated that he did not observe any label on the can. Would not swear that there was not. James Tunny, l»cal analyst, deposed that Constable Graham liad brought him the milk in question. Had analysed it, and found it to contain 40 per cent, of water. Godfrey Tait, a lad in the employ of Mr. Campbell, deposed: Kemembered selling milk to Constable Graham on the morning ii. question. He supplied Constable Graham with milk before lie served Mrs. Graham. The constable, when asking for the milk, produced a bottle and fuuuel. Took the milk from a can which had a label affixed to it, stating that the milk was mixed. (Can produced.) Told Constable Graham that it was not sold as pure milk. The constable did not ask witness to accompany him to the analyst's office until the afternoon. Had taken around some pure milk for a week or two, which hn had offered for sale at Sd per quart, but his customers would not buy it. Mr. Thorne submitted that the case should be dismissed as the evidence was contradictory. He also contended that the Act implied that the vendor of the adulterated article should not bo taken unawares, but that he should be informed by the purchaser for what purpose the article was intended, and should be asked by the purchaser to accompany him to the analyst's office iu order that lie might be assured that the article was not tampered with in transmission. As this course, according to the evidence of the boy, had notbeen followed, he thought, therefore, that the case should be dismissed. Constable McGrath stated that ho was in the

habit of buying milk for the purpose of being analysed by the local analyst. Had always paid 5d per quart. On being asked to name one individual from whom he had purchased milk at 5d per quart, witness mentioned Mr. Baillie, of Mount Eden. Mr. Tunny stated that ho had examined the sample of milk purchased from Mr. Baillio, and found it to be unadulterated. This concluded the case, and the Bench, after a short deliberation, came to the decision that tho label on the can did not give sufficient notification to the public that the milk contained therein was adulterated with water. A line of Jb's and costs was accordingly imposed.