RIVER PLATE MEAT AS NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11935, 8 January 1901, Page 7

RIVER PLATE MEAT AS NEW ZEALAND.

, THE BLACKPOOL CASH, . (Pbou Otjb Own Corkespondent.) ■ LONDON, December 1. : At Blackpool, on Monday !ast, " the New. Zealand meat case," remitted from'the High Court, again came on for hearing before the magistrates. The case was that of H. 0. / Cameron (the New Zealand Produce Commissioner) versus Albert E. Wiggins, who,'since the first hearing in the early part of the year,' has given up his business at Blackpool, the, summons for rehearing being served upon him at Sheffield. Ho, however, was in attendance on Monday, as was ajeo Mr Cameron. It will be remembered that 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, 1867," and, secondly, of falsely applying the , same trade description. -These two charges were re-entered on 'the list Dti Monday for reconsideration by the- local justices. Mr Butoher, for the complainant, said that at, the previous hearing tlie justices—Messrs; Fisher; Lawson, Whittakcry Fletcher, and'■ Cardwell—decided that the facts proved die) not establish the application of the trade description in the meaning of the act, but in dismissme 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 Mr Justice Lawrence and Mr Justice 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 controvert the facts proved, the magistrates ought to convict the defendant, who should also, pay the costs of the appeal. He (Mr Butcher) had ventured to put the case before the magistrates as a test case for tho protection of the producers of New Zealand mutton, of honest traders in this country, nnd 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, ho did not pi'ess for a very sevore penalty. If it accorded with the ideas of.the magistrates, he was prepared to accept a penalty of £1, and £1 Is costs, in respeet of the first offence, and the second charge would be withdrawn. Mr Callis, for the defendant, wished to say a few words respecting the defendant's position. The case, ho 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 Agent-general of the New Zealand Government behind his back. At the original hearing he had asked if the Agent-; general had prosecuted anyone in London, Manchester, Liverpool, or Glasgow, or any leading butcher at all, but ho 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 caino before the magistrates. They then had tho defendant's wife, who would have been able to give evidence on his behalf, but between that date and now she had gone nway. ' .Mr Butcher: If lam going to give auy concessions, it is not to give my friend the opportunity of- blackguarding the prosecution. If my friend pleads guilty, he can shut his inouth, or the case goes on. I don't care which way it is. .MrCallis: Well, as you have so beautifully put it, I will shut my mouth; that is, excepting to explain tho position of the defendant. Continuing, Mr Callis said that as a result ctf the prosecution the man had lost all hia business, nnd hie wife had left him. Instead of having a business of his own, he -was now j an employee. Hβ was not able to apply for the assistance of counsel to defend the appeal in London, and lie had come there that day absolutely unable to meet any penalty or any: large sum of costs. Had the case gone on, j he might have won it or lost it. Had lie' lost it, the amount of costs woukjjiave been so great that lie might have had to spend two or three months in prison. He had asked him to plead guilty, and he was much obliged to the prosecution for having accepted the fine and a small amount of costs. .'Mr Butcher said that although the defendant was not represented by counsel in London, lie 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 Callis: My learned friend the judge stopped arguing too soon in favour-of my client. .' ' The Magistrates agreed to the-imposition of the penalty acceptable to both parties. A local paper, commenting on the case, points out that " dealers in foreign meat may take warning from tho ultimate issue of the prosecution by tho Agent-general of New Zealand." '