FRAUD IN THE FROZEN MUTTON TRADE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1507, 17 January 1901, Page 51

FRAUD IN THE FROZEN MUTTON TRADE

NEW- ZEALAND SOLD AS ARGENTINE. A VICTORY FOR THE PRODUCE COMMISSIONERS. It will be remembered that Mr H. sj. Cameron, the Produce Commissioner for the New Zealand Government in London, recently prosecuted a butcher for seifima leg of Argentine mutton as New Zealand mutton, and that the case went against him in the Magistrate’s Court. Mr Cameron, however, appealed against the decision, and with success, as the following report of the final consideration of the case t. the Justices will show. The report is taken from the "Blackpool Herald’' : Dealers in foreign meat may take warning from the ultimate issue of the prosecution brought by the Agent-Gene-ral for~New Zealand against Albert JV. Wiggins, who until recently carried on the business of butcher at 126, Egerton road. Two charges were preferred against defendant in April last, viz., that of selling a leg of mutton to which a false trade description, to wit, '‘New Zealand mutton,” was applied within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and secondly cf falsely applying the same trade description. These two charges were entered on the list yesterday for re-consideration by the local Justices. Mr J. F. Butcher (Bury) appeared to prosecute~bn behalf of H. C. Cameron, Produce Commissioner for New Zealand, and the defendant was represented by Mr C. W. Callis. Mr Butcher said that after the previous hearing, the Justices—Messrs er, Lawson, Whittaker, Cardwell and Fletcher—decided that the facts proved did not establish the application of, the trade description in the meaning or the Act, hTt in dismissing the prosecution they stated a case for the Queen’s Bench Division. The case came before the High Court on the 23rd October, when it was heard by Justices Lawrence and Kennedy. By their reserved .judgment, delivered on the 3rd November, they found that the Magistrates’ decision on the technical point should be reversed, and that subject to no evidence being put forward to contra-vert the facts proved, the Magistrates ought, to convict the defendant, who should also pay the costs of the appeal. He (the speaker) had ventured to put me case before the Magistrates as a testcase for the protection of the producers of New Zealand mutton, of honest traders in this country, and of the consumers also. The defendant was not a man of means, and recognising that there had already been an order -made for costs against him on the technical point- decided in London, he did not press for a very severe penalty. If it accorded with the ideas of the Magistrates, he was prepared to accept a penalty of £1 and £1 Is costs in respect of the first offence, and the second charge would be withdrawn. Mr Callis wished to say a word or two respecting the defendant’s position. The case, he said, was brought before the Court with .a great flourish of trumpets. The defendant, who had a little shop in the town, was prosecuted by a gentleman representing the New Zealand Government, and with the AgentGeneral of the New Zealand Government behind his back. At the original hearing, he had asked if the AgentGeneral had prosecuted anyone in JUondon, Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow, or any leading butcher at all, but he found that this little man in a- back street was the first one they had started on. The case was gone into, but it was unfortunate that it was not proceeded with and completed the* first time it came before the Magistrates. They then had the defendant’s wife, who. would have been able to give evidence on his behalf, but between that and now she hadi gone away. Mr Butcher: If I am going to give any concessions, it is not to give my friend the opportunity cf blackguarding the prosecution. If my friend pleads guilty, lie can shut his mouth, or tne case goes on. 1 don’t care which way it is. . . Mr Callis: Well, as you have so beautifully put it, I will shut my mouth; that is, excepting to explain the position ol the defendant. Proceeding, Mr Callis said that as a result of the prosecution the man had lost all his business, and his wife had left him. Instead 1 of having a business

of his* own, lie was now an employee, lie was not able to apply for 'the assistance of counsel to defend the appeal in London, and he had come there that day absolutely unable to meet any penalty or any large sum of costs. Had mo case gene on, he might have won it or lost it. Had he lost- it, the amount of costs would have been so great he might have had to spend two or three months in prison. He had asked iiim to plead guilty, and he was much obliged to the prosecution fo'r having accented the fine and a small amount for costs. Mr Butcher said that although th.e defendant- was not represented by counsel in London, he could not possibly have had better representatives than the •Judges themselves were. Mr Justice Kennedy in particular argued every possible point in favour of the defendant. Mr Call is : My learned friend the Judge stopped arguing too soon in favour of ray client. The Magistrates agreed to the imposition of the penalty acceptable to both parties.