NOT NEW ZEALAND MUTTON

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1831, 10 April 1907, Page 47

NOT NEW ZEALAND MUTTON

HILL END ASYLUM CONTRACTOR V , FINED. A FALSE TRADE DESCRIPTION. The following report is gleaned from the “Herts Advertiser” of Feb. 9, and is republished in extenso because of its importance to New Zealand meat exporters. We are indebted to the High Commissioner for New Zealand for pur copy of the paper from which the extract is taken. A case of considerable interest to Hertfordshire, and to meat dealers generally, was heard at derkenwell Policy Court, before Mr Bros, on Tuesday afternoon. On the information 6f : George Goodchild, clerk and steward of the Hill End Asylum, acting' under instructions from the Herts''6ounty Council, a summons was heard against William Frederick Masters, trading as W. F. Masters and Son, "at 35,, Rosoman street, Clerkenwell,.;E.C., for that on October 31st there 'were, belonging to him, at King’s, Cross Station, six carcasses of South American mutton, to which a false trade description, to wit, ‘New Zealand mutton,” had been applied, contrary to. the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.::/.

Mr . Horace Avory, K.C., and Mr J. H. Murphy (briefed by Mr C. E. Longmore, Clerk of the Peace for Herts) prosecuted, and Mr Ricketts, solicitor, defended.

Opening the case, Mr Avory stated that technically there were two summonses against defendant—one for applying a false trade' descriptions and the other for having in his possession the goods to which the false description wks applied. The defendant was a meW# salesman in the Central Meat . Markbt,< he also having premises An Roso^aah 1 street', Clerkenwell. He entered Aiito a contract with the Herts County as guardians of the Hill Rhd Asylum, St. Albans, to supply meat, and, among other things, agreed to supply frozen mutton, which was to be “prime quality, New Zealand,” and the carcases were not to be under 561 b in weight, nor to exceed 641 b. The consignments to the Asylum were to be guaranteed as New Zealand, and sent out, as imported, in tlieir original wrappers, aiid with their original labels. Under that contract//file defendant from time to tjine made'’deliveries of meat that aroused the suspicions of the officials,, and the gtewApd called in Mr Cameron,/ 1 /-the New.vZealand Government’s fepfesehtativOj .iii London In connection #iih / foreign produce. Mr Cameron was at the Asylum on October 31st, when

six" carcases were delivered at the Asylum. On the ;wrappers were the words, “O.M.CV lamb, which stood for “Christchurch Meat Company lamb,” which company had its works in the South Island of New Zealand. To each or the carcases there was a ticket, marked “New Zealand meat/’ with the name of “Nelson Bros., Gisborne.” Gisborno was in the North Island of New Zealand, and on a comparison of the wrappers and labels it ivas perfectly' clear that some re-ar-rangement had been made, because if the meat had come from the Christchurch Company it would have come form the South Island, and if form Messrs Nelson’s, as the labels purported, it would come from the North Island. It ivas quite obvious that something had been changed: either the wrappers, or the labels, or both, and he. thought the magistrate would find it was both. Mr Cameron, upon examination, found that the meat was not New Zealand, but either River Plate or American, worth at that time from three farthings to a penny less per pound than New Zealand. The six carcases varied in weight from 591 b to 641 b, which, roughly, would mean a deficiency of about 48s in the market value. The authorities at the Asylum thought they would be fortified by taking the opinion of other experts, and he thought the magistrate would b© satisfied that the meat was South American or River Plate.

Mr Ricketts: I do not dispute that. Mr Avory proceeded to state that proceedings were decided upon, and described the steps that were taken to put the. prosecution in order. On January lOlh the visiting committee of the Asylum sent a letter to defendant, alleging that South American mutton had been sent' to the Asylum with a false description attached, and asking for information as to whom defendant received the meat form. The only answer to this wais a call from a gentleman named Wood, who stated that he was a partner in the firm. He said that the meat had been sent from his premises in Rosoman street by a clerk, in mistake, and that the blunder should not be repeated. He gave no information as to where the meat was obtained from. On more than one occasion prior to October 31st the authorities at the Asylum had been satisfied that . the meat delivered was not from New Zealand. Therefore, if on the particular occasion under notice it was a mistake, the mistake had been repeated over and over again. Mr Ricketts intimated that he was not in a position to dispute the allegation that a false trade description was applied, hut he took exception to the statement as to prices. He hinted to his learned friend that he might make the evidence as short as lie liked, as ho (Mr Ricketts) was not going to contend that the mutton came from New Zealand, neither was he going to call any witnesses.

'George Goodchild, clerk and steward at Hill End Asylum, produced the uontract with the defendant, containing the stipulation outlined by counsel. The contract commenced on October Ist, and witness was away till Ocsober 14th. On his return, certain complaints were made to him about meat delivered by the defendant, and this caused him to communicate with Mr Cameron. Mr Cameron was present on October 31st, when six carcases were delivered, and rvitness bore out the statements of Mr Avory as to wrappers and labels. Witness called in two other meat experts, Messrs Mann and Hodson.

Mr Ricketts, in cross-examination, put it to witness that as the wrappers had “lamb” printed on, it was obvious that the wrappers had been changed, and that there was no intention to deceive.

Witness admitted writing to defendant on October 31st, complaining, and said Mr Dace, the defendant’s representative, came to see him on November Ist.

Mr Ricketts: After examining these carcases, he agreed, certainly with regard to four, that they were not New Zealand.—Witness: He said had he seen them before they were sent away, he would not have sent them.

Did he agree with you at the time, certainly with regard to four, that they were not New Zealand? —I understood six. You ' mentioned just now that this was done in consequence of what had been done before.' You did not say anything in that letter about having discovered such carcases previously?— No.

never intimated to defendant that he had sent wrong carcases under this contract? —No; not under this contract. In reply to Air Avory, witness said the price of New Zealand meat had gone up very considerably since the contract was entered into. On a previous contract there was a complaint about meat being delivered which was not in accordance with the contract.

William Orchard, butcher at Hill End Asylum, was put into the box to speak of previous deliveries of meat, when Mr Ricketts objected. He admitted, he said,- the specific offence for which his client was summoned, but

it was unfair to speak of othey dates. - Under these circumstances the witness was withdrawn, Mr Avory reserving the right to re-call him in the event of his being needed to reply to any point raised by the defendant. Henry Charles Cameron, for ten years commissioner, in England For the New Zealand Government for New Zealand produce, stated that the Christchurch Company had their headquarters in the South Island, and Messrs Nelson’s in the North Island. The numbers oh the labels representing the weight did-not correspo .-b with the' weight of the. carcases. It was quite clear to him that both the wrappers and labels had been taken off other carcases and put on these. In his opinion the meat was River Plate _ meat, which was J-d to |d less per lb than prime New Zealand. Mr Ricketts was questioning witness 1 as to prices, when Mr Avory stated that ‘the contract price was 2s 3d per stone for New Zealand, and the market price at the time was 2s 9d to 2s lOd, and apparently the defendant wanted to get off as'lightly as he could.

Mr Ricketts, for the defence, said the defendant was not in a position to dispute the facts stated by the prosecution in regard to- this particular day. But until he came into Court the defendant did not know there was any suggestion that on any other day there had been deliveries that were not in accordance with the contract. One would have thought that when' a letter was -written on October 31st, and when Mr Dace called on November Ist, there would have been an intimation of previous breaches of contract, if there were ahy, as alleged by the prosecution. Even in the letter of January 20th from the visiting, committee, not one word was said about previous complaints by the Asylum staff. Nothing was heard by the defendant from October 31st to January 31st, so that he had every reason to believe that the explanation given by his representative on November Ist had been considered satisfactory. The defendant admitted that wrong labels were applied, and he was not in a position to give the information asked for owing to the length of time that had elapsed, and the fact that two of the employees who were working at the time the meat was sent out had left. The defendant had three business places, each one being under the control of a manager. He was under .contract to despatch meat to Hill End by the 7.45 train from King’s Cross. Sometimes the morning supply of meat would not reach defendant’s premises in time to catch the train, in which case he would supply from stock. When carcases were in stock it was the custom to strip the linen cover form them, as they kept better. On the morning in 'question the fresh stock did not arrive at its proper time, so it was decided to supply Hill End from stock at the Rosoman street . premises. The man sending out the Hill End supply apparently could not find six New Zealand carcases of the right size, so he sent six River Plate carcases, and slipped on the first wrappers and labels that came to his hand. There was obviously no intention to deceive, as the wrappers were, lamb cloths, and had “lamb” plainly stamped on. On the question of price, there was only a difference of 2d per stone between New Zealand and River Plate, which would only work out at 8s for the six carcases. He pointed out that the defendant had had to supply meat at a great loss owing to the rise in 'the price of New Zealand mutton, in mitigation of the offence—an offence unintentionally committed by defendant. Mr Avory re-called the witness Orchard, who said on October Ist two carcases were delivered which he be--1 lieved were not New Zealand mutton; on October 4th, two ; on (Vdober Bth, five; and on October 9th, two. Mr Bros stated that it was clear a wrong trade description had been applied; the difference in price did not affect the issue, and a fine of £5 and £25 costs would be imposed.