THE LIABILITY OF BAKERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9116, 26 July 1888, Page 6

THE LIABILITY OF BAKERS.

At the Police Court yesterday, • Thomas Wilson, of street, baker, was charged under the Adulteration Prevention Act, 1880, Amendment Act, 1883, with selling one batch loaf of bread of less than 21b weight, to wit, of lib looz. such bread not being stale bread or "fancy bread. There was also a 'second. similar charge against the same defendant. : Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. SergeantMajor Pratt conducted the prosecution. Sergeant Gamble produced his appointment as Inspector and, the Gazette, ana deposed that on the day in question he visited the shop of Thomas Hoyle Matthews, grocer, of Patteson-street, ana examined a batch 'of bread. He found two loaves short weight, one to the extent of loz, and the other several drachms. The loaves were marked " T.W.," the defendant's initials. Mr. Napier objected to any statement being made as to the letters on the loaves. The loaves themselves must be produced, as the sergeant might have mistaken Egyptian cuneiform characters for the letters " T.W." The Bench ruled that the answer could not be received in the absence of the loaves. Thomas Hoyle Matthews deposed he had received the bread which had been examined by Sergeant Gamble from defendant's cart. By Mr. Napier: He had often weighed defendant's bread, and found it full weight. He had placed these loaves on his counter. They were in a draught. There were three open doors. It was a windy • day. The bread was hot when -it had been received . from defendant's carter. It was 'received at nine a.m., and Sergeant Gamble : did not come to the shop until one ' o'clock. He knew that bread lost ■in weight by • evaporation. . This was the case for ; the prosecution. Mr. Napier, in opening the case for the defence, said that he had a fatal objection to raise at this stage, viz., that it was not proved that at the time the bread was sold by the defendant to Matthews- it .was light weight. The bread was sold at nine o'clock, and was exposed to a. draught, and it was well known that bread lost weight by evaporation. The defendant was not responsible for the weight of the bread after it left his possession. There was no proof even that a slice had not been cut off it. It was no doubt important that the public should receive bread of full weight, especially in these hard times, .when the majority of people had nothing to live upon except bread and cheese ana kisses but bakers could not be held liable for bread many hours after they had sold it. The defendant gave evidence that he always allowed 3oz for evaporation. He had weighed a batch that morning and found them ljoz over weight. Bread lost weight by exposure to the sun or wind". Messrs. Teasdale, Crowe, and Leslie, bakers, gave evidence as to the result of exposing new bread to wind. • The Bench dismissed the case, stating that the baker was not responsible after the bread left his possession. It was the seller who was liable if the bread was of short weight.