PTOMAINE POISONING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16327, 6 September 1916, Page 5

PTOMAINE POISONING.

QUALITY OF PORK PIE.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS.

Thb defence was placed before the magistrate yesterday relative to the case in which Henry Thomas Dell, barman (Mr. N. P. Wyatt) sought to recover from H. A. Coates, pork butcher (Mr. A. Hanna), the sum of £8 4s 6d. The plaintiff based his claim on the assertion that on the evening of July 15 last he purchased a shilling pork pie from the defendant's shop in Lower Queen Street. Ho ate the pie, and afterwards suffered from the effects of ptomaine poisoning. As tho result of his illness he lost £3 7 6d in wages, and incurred medical expenses totalling 13s. Plaintiff also claimed £4 4s for special damages. Evidence in support of the claim was heard on Thursday last. Medical testimony was given "that plaintiff suffered from ptomaine poisoning, and plaintiff asserted that nothing except the pie could have caused his illness.

Tho defendant deposed yesterday that • on the afternoon of July 15 he received an order from his shop in Lower Queen Street asking for more shilling pork pies, He set to and made the pies himself, and had them delivered by five o'clock. The ingredients used were the finest fresh pork procurable, salt, pepper, and cayenne, He was absolutely convinced that the pies made on the date in question were quite good. When plaintiff approached him on July 19 in connection with a claim for damages, defendant repudiated all responsibility. Evidence was also given by the manager and an assistant of the shop in which plaintiff stated he bought the pie. It was averred that the goods offered for sale were quite fresh and good. The witnesses had no recollection of plaintiff's purchase. Dr. H. E. B. Milsom, after hearing the depositions as to what plaintiff had eaten on July 15 and the symptoms of his illness, said it was impossible to say that tho pork pie had caused the poisoning. The fact that plaintiff had eaten fish and steak and kidney pie, as well as tho pork pie, made it difficult to trace the exact cause of the illness. The state of the plaintiff's health on the date in question was also a factor to be considored. The magistrate, in summing up, said it was clear plaintiff hid suffered from ptomaine poisoning. Tho question for the Court to decide was, " Was the poisoning caused bv a pie purchased at defendant's shop?" When throwing away half the pie which he did not eat, the plaintiff had discarded the only evidence which might have been of value to him. This was an extraordinary and a foolish thing to do. Neither of the two expert witnesses called, Dr. MacKellar and Dr Milsom, could state positively that the pie had caused the poisoning, and the onus was on the plaintiff to prove conclusively that tho poisoning was duo to eating the pie. There was a strong suspicion that the pie was responsible, but strong suspicion was not proof in a case of tho kind before the Court. Tn the absence of more direct evidence the plaintiff would bo nonsuited with costs.