COURT REPORTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6690, 12 December 1908, Page 7

COURT REPORTS

FRIDAY. DECEMBER 11. SUPREME COURT-DIVORCE (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) HEPBURN v. HEPBURN. Mr R. ii. ‘Williams appeared for the petitioner,'David ‘William Hepburn, a boilermaker by trade, who sought a dissolution of his marriage with Winifred Hepburn on the ground of her misconduct with the co-respondent, Matthew E. Rains, hotelkeeper, of Pahiatua. There was no appearance of the respondent or co-respondent. The petitioner stated that the marriage took place on April 22nd, 19(M. There wore no children born of the marriageSome months labor respondent became addicted to drink. Her conduct was such that petitioner was obliged to Joavo her, but bo made her an allowance of IDs per week for a year, when ho ceased making any more payments on account of her drinking habits. Ho had been living apart from her for a little over three years. Rcoontly_ the co-respondent had offered him £SO to withdraw the petition, stating that if the proceedings wore gone on with he would be ruined, but petitioner had declined to takothia course. A young ■woman gave evidence that she had lived for some time with the respondent in Wellington. Co-respondent used to visit the house, and as respondent’s conduct was not what it should , nave been the witness left the place. His Honor granted a decree nisi in terms of the petition, with costs against the co-respondent on the lowest scale, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to bo fixed by the .Registrar, MAGISTRATES’ JURISDICTION POLICE CASES. (Before Mr W. G, Riddell, 8.M.) " AN HABITUAL.” John Miller was charged with being an habitual drunkard, and with being found in possession of liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. His Worship said ho considered defendant was a fit person to bo committed to the Salvation Army Homo nt Pakaton,. and remanded him until Wednesday to see whether ho could ho admitted. On the second charge ho whs fined £l, in default seven days’ imprisonment. A YOUTHFUL THIEF. Frank Belcher, who admitted stealing a gold watch mid other articles valued at £ls from William Wildmnn, appeared for sentence. Chief-Defective McGrath said accused had been working for Mr Fer■i undos, and had stolen the articles from a work-mate. Nothing was previously known against him. Air Toogood made a plea for leniency, stating that his client had no intention of stealing the watch, intending to put it hack. Ilia Worship gave accused some good advice as to "his future conduct, and ordered him to come up for sentence when called upon. ALLEGED BURGLARY.

A recent arrival from Sydney, lie’ - , hurt Stanley Hill, was remanded until the 16th inst. on a charge of breaking and entering the house of Walter -Joseph Baskivillo, Sussex square. Bail •an allowed in tho sum of £IOO and ‘wo sureties of £SO each. CO'LLTSIOX WITH A Tit.MX.

On October 24th last, Thomas Corbett, a cabdriver. was driving his vehicle near the "Whitmore street railway crossing. Suddenly n train ap-

peared just as Corbett was crossing, with the result that an accident occurred, in which the cah and its proprietor got much tho worst of the deal. Corbett was incapacitated for over sis weeks. Ho answered a summons for having attempted to cross a level crossing when an engine was approaching within half a mile of such crossing. Ho was convicted, fined 20s, and ordered to pay 31s costs, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. TUB BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

Walter Turner, a young man, denied a charge of having unlawfully assaulted Yung Soo at Karori on slay 11th last. Tho offence was alleged to have occurred on tho Karori road. Accused and another man > were driving in a trap, when an interchange of missiles took place. They pulled up, and Turner and his mate were said to have got down from their trap and assaulted Soo.

Defendant said he had only endeavoured to separate his mate and complainant while they were scuffling.

His Worship said tho case was suspicious, hut lie gave defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed tho information. A DEFIANT SEAMAN.

A seaman on tho barqnentino Helga, named 11. Dorman, admitted having used insulting language to James 12. Garrick, the mate of tho vessel. There was an application for sureties of tho peace on the part of Dorman. Mr Gray explained that accused was a seaman on tho Helga, having joined her at Sydney. He had been anxious to obtain’ his discharge on arrivel here, but tho captain had declined to let him go, owing to the shortage of men. Since then accused had acted in a defiant manner when ordered to carry out various duties, although ho had not actually refused to work. Ho asked that he he bound over to keep the peace. Accused was ordered’ to enter into a recognisance in the sum of £lO to keep the peace for six months, also to pay 9s costs and solicitors’ fee £1 lls, in default seven days' imprisonment. BREAKING AND ENTERING. RawKiti Hanihera was charged on two separate informations with having, in November last, at Lower Hutt, broken and entered tho dwellinghouses of Ranapa Welch and Coora Raimini, and stolen therefrom articles valued respectively at £2 and £5 12s. Accused pleaded guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. DISMISSED, John Connor successfully defended a charge of having used threatening language in Cuba street -whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. OTHER OASES. John Lamb, who failed to notify tho inspector of his intention to erect a scaffolding, was convicted and fined 10s, with 7,s costs, in default fortyeight hours’ imprisonment. Ernest Bowden and John Knowles were each convicted of allowing horses to wander at Crofbon, the former being fined 5s and 7s costs, and tho latter ordered to pay £1 Is costs, the default in each case being fixed at forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.

PURE FOODS ACT.

ALLEGED ADULTERATED MEEK,

A number of milkmen.—Aspin and Mason, George Edwards, Joseph Darien, Jeremiah Harrington, John McHarrio, Thomas Packer, Inglis and Cooper, M. Sharp, A. Stevens, F. S. Whitton and D. Kavanagh—were charged before Dr McArthur with haring sold milk adulterated with water. There wore second counts in most cases tliat defendants did not inform the purchasers as to tho nature of the adulteration at time of purchase. Tho allegation was that tho milk did not comply with tho standard prescribed

by tho regulations made under the authority of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1907, being below the standard in total solids and in fatty solids.

Mr 51. Myers appeared for the Public Health Department. The case against Aspin and Mason was taken first. Mr Levi for tho defendants, submitted that tho standard was unreasonably high, there was no proof that tho excess of water- had been 'added by tho defendants and that they had taken the reasonable precautions specified under tho Act. Tho sample it was reported had been adulterated by tho addition of not less than 8 per cent, of water. Unadulterated milk according to tho text books might have as [ow a percentage of fats and solids as s.o—a lower percentage than in the present case. James Aspin said the milk had been delivered to him by tho farmer from whom ho purchased it about 9 p.m. Tho delivery round commenced at 3 o'clock next morning. Ho had mado no test; as a matter of fact he had no knowledge of testing. To sir Myers: Ho had heard of a lactometer, but had not used one. If milk vendors started to make stipulations to farmers by way of guarantee of the milk they- would be blocked altogether in their business. Mr Myers submitted that the statute throw tho onus of proof on tho defendants of proving that the milk had been adulterated at promises other than their own. What tho department wanted to do was to show publicly that such cases would bo followed by proceedings invariably, and it was just as well that persons dealing in public foods should know what their liabilities were. OTHER. OASES. Mr Blair appeared for tho defendants Huslcn and Edwards, Mr Herdman for McHan-io and Harrington. In tho case of McHarno Mr Herdman submitted that when slr Shaver, Chief Inspector of tho public Health Department, purchased the milk the man had actually finished his round. The milk taken was not intended for human consumption but was to be returned to the depot. The sample was not taken from the bulk of the milk delivered to customers. These were his two grounds of defence. . John McHarrio said he was m the habit of testing the milk sent out, by a lactometer. On this particular occasion the milk showed 12 per cent, better than pure, but it was tested at a lower temperature than usual. The last lot of milk at the bottom of the can was always inferior. Mr Blair submitted on behalf of defendant Edwards, that the milk sold by him had first been pasteurised ihe samples were very little below the standard of tho departments regulations. As a matter of fact the standard was impossible, and at certain agricultural shows the prize-win-ing cows had fallen below it. Ho also understood that ihe State farm milk in some instances did not com© up to tho standard. Tho sample Had been taken from tho bottom of the can, which was not a fair bulk sample. Mr slyers in reply pointed out that the minimum of fat and solids required under the regulations was S.io per cent. It was no higher than the standard rooiiired in other parts of the world. He had been informed by Dr 1 Frcngley that it was tho 111 Australia, and in Paris tho minimum was 3.50. Of seventy-seven samples taken by the Public Health officers—the average percentage of tho whole was not lass than 3.58. In the case of thirtyfour of the samples proceedings had been instituted. If the five worst samples outside the thirty-four were added to tho thirty-four the average percentage was then 3.25, the minimum standard required. The average m the remaining samples was 3.J2. inero was nothing in tho argument that samples had been taken from the hottom of cans as . this portion was also sold to the public as well as the lest of the i.i ilk . . The whole of tho cases were on similar lines, most of tho defendants havin’c purchased the milk which they sokl from farmers in the surrounding dl rrintTof £3, with £3 15s costs were inflicted in tho following cases :—D. Kavanagh, Aspin and Mason 1. b. Whitten. M. Sharp, Inghs and Cooper, and Thomas Packer. A Stevens was convicted and ordered to pay costs was reserved in tho remainder of the cases.