A MAGISTRATE'S NOTES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19255, 18 February 1926, Page 12

A MAGISTRATE'S NOTES.

LOST AFTER COURT CASE.

WANTED FOR AN APPEAL.

EVIDENCE POSSIBLY REHEARD.

An unusual situation arose in an appeal case which came before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday, the magistrate, Mr. Poyntcn, whose decision was appealed against, having lost his notes oI the evidence taken at the hearing. Armoret Louis Fleury, inspector under the Food and Drugs Act (Mr. Meredith), was the appellant and Shaw Bros., Howick (Mr. Armstead), the respondent. Shaw Bros, were charged before Mr. Poynton in July, 1925, with having sold to the inspector milk that was below the standard of milk solids. Tlie circumstances, as related by Mr. Meredith, were that Shaw Bros., who are milk vendors, own a farm which was last year carried on by a married couple named Sutcliffe. On the occasion of the purchase Sutcliffe was absent and his wife made the sale. The defence offered by Shaw Bros, was that Mrs. Sutcliffe had no contractual relations with them, and had no authority to sell and therefore the defendants were not responsible for her act. The magistrate accepted that defence, and dismissed the case. After argument His Honor referred the case back to the magistrate for the evidence. Mr. Meredith; If he still cannot find it I suppose he will have to recall the witnesses. His Honor: I suppose ho will.