PROTECTION OF FRUIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18059, 6 April 1922, Page 9

PROTECTION OF FRUIT.

CASES AGAINST FRUITERERS. NOMINAL FINE IN TOST CASE. Reserved decision was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday in the test case in connection with the charges against a number of fruiterers that they had not protected fruit from flies and dust. Tho prosecution was conducted by the City Council snnitary inspector. Mr. C. T. Haynes, and Mr. Dickson, instructed by the Retail Fruiterers' Association, appeared for the defendants. The charge was laid under by-law No. 437, which reads: "Every person who selU within the eily any meat or fish or any food which is ordinarily consumed in the state in which it is sold shall protect such food, until it is delivered to a purchaser, from dust and flies, by storage in covered receptacles, by covering with gauze, or by other effectual nicanr.; and no vendor shall carry such food through the streets unless it be protected as aforesaid." The magistrate said there was. a similar provision in the regulations under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, gazetted on March 4, 1913. It was admitted that the fruit sold was not protected by screens to keep away flies and protect it from dust. The defence was that the by-law was bad on the following grounds: That the by-law was unreasonable; that it was uncertain in that it did not specify the fruit to be the subject of the by-law or the particular person to whom it applied; that it improperly interfered with trade, and that there was no effective means of dealing with dust. It was admitted that screens would keep flies from the fruit, but not dust altogether. It wa3 stated by several witnesses that screens would interfere with the ventilation of fruit, and so hasten decay, but this evidence was not satisfactory. Apples were mostly spoken of, but it was proved that apples each wrapped in paper or packed in the centre kept better than those exposed to the air. The best fruit in Auckland shops, continued the magistrate, was kept behind glass windows with a boarded or glass partition at the back. This gets little ventilation. Other shops used electric fans to keep the air moving in the window or show cases. Fruit in these enclosures would be effectively protected from flics and dust and would be in compliance with the by-law. The magistrate dealt with the danger of infection from flics and dust contaminating the food and said that although it was impossible to wholly exclude dust all the witnesses admitted that much of it could be kept off food. Neither borough officials nor Courts would expect absolute prevention of dust. Bylaws must be read liberally and treated benevolently in interpreting them. This by-law certainly was oppressive, but no more so than other laws passed in the interests of health and cleanliness. The expense and caro involved in protecting certain kinds of fruit consumed as sold from infection by flies and contamination by dust was nothing in comparison to the valuoof the health of the community. As this was a test case, only a nominal fine of £1 with costs was imposed, leave to appeal being granted and security fixed at £15 15s.