MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15916, 13 May 1915, Page 4

MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED.

CONVICTION TO BE ADVERTISED.

" This is quite a different case to the last one, and I have a strong suspicion that there is moro than carelessness behind it," was the magistrate's comment on the charge against Thomas Brothers, who were charged with having sold on April 1 a 41b loaf which weighed only 31b 13|oz. A plea of not guilty was entered, Mr. Vallance defending the case. Evidence was called to show that on the date in question two inspectors called at the defendant's shop, buying a 41b and a 21b loaf respectively. They afterwards returned to the shop, disclosed their identity, and weighed the loaves, both of which were short in weight. The defendants, who only the previous day had bad six charges against them of selling short-weight bread dismissed solely on technical, grounds, declined to allow the inspectors to weigh any more of the loaves in the shop. i One of the two defendants, having been sworn, said that he refused to allow the inspectors to weigh any more of his bread, because they had not disclosed their identity when buying the two loaves. " Anyone would think," ho said, "that it was a sly grog-shop." He said that he subseSiuently weighed the loaves himself, and ound most of them to bo correct, or over the weight. . Counsel pointed out that the defendants were giving the public a cheaper loaf than many bakers, with the result that their bread was cheaper than the full-weight loaves of other bakers. There had only been an error of judgment in the weight allowance during baking. Remarking that the defendants were lucky in being prosecuted in respect to only one of the two short-weight loaves bought by the inspectors, , His Worship said that there was a very strong suspicion in his mind as to why the defendants did not want the other loaves weighed by the inspectors. There' were other bakers, he said, who were selling bread at the same price as the defendants, and in thus bidding for business they were handicapped by the defendants getting part of their profit from light-weight loaves, whilst the public, who expected to get full weight for their money, were disappointed. It was not fair, therefore, to other bakers, or to the public. Such errors of judgment would have to bo checked, and the defendants -would be fined the maximum penalty allowed by the Act. This was £20, but,'added His Worship, had there been two charges, as there well might have been, he would have imposed fines' totalling £30. In addition to the fines, the defendants were ordered to pay for the cost of advertising full particulars about their convictions in the twi daily papers in Auckland, and in two of the weekly papers.