A DISEASED CARCASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19952, 20 November 1926, Page 9

A DISEASED CARCASE.

FAILURE TO DESTROY. WAITATI BUTCHER'S FINED. “EXTREME CARELESSNESS” SHOWN. At the City Police Court yesterday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., Oram and Beer, butchers at Waitati, were charged with (1) failing to keep knives, cleaver, and saw clean; (2) failing to stamp every quarter of the carcase of a cow with the ollicial registered number of the licensee; (3) and with failing to destroy the carcase of a diseased cow so that the product could not be used for human consumption. Inspector Fountain, of the Department of Agriculture, prosecuted, and Mr J. N. Macfarlane appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Rupert George Frederick Fountain said he was an inspector under the Slaughterhouse and Inspection Act. On October 7 witness visited the registered slaughterhouse of the defendants and there saw hanging up a carcase of a cow palpably diseased with tuberculosis. He looked round for the offal of this animal, and eventually traced it to a neighbouring farm, where it was being boiled for the purposes of feeding to fowls and pigs. The cow was slaughtered and the carcase dressed in the approved manner. It was properly dressed and was obviously intended for human consumption. Examination of the arcase showed that there was distinct evidence of pleuro on the right side of the carcase. The proper method in a case like that was to disembowel the carcase and have it destroyed. According ie the defendants’ books this cow was killed on October 4, and witness inspected the animal and premises on October 7. The defendants’ premises were connected by telephone and it was their duty to at once notify the Department of Agriculture- The butcher employed was a practical man and must have known that the animal was diseased. Witness pointed out that compensation was allowed by the Government for any diseased animals killed at a slaughterhouse. This was the encouragement offered by the department to report cases of this sort. It had to be assumed that whan a carcase remained hanging in a slaughterhouse for four days it was an indication that it was intended for human consumption. At the slaughterhouse he found two knives, one saw, and one cleaver. These implements had been used for killing and cutting the diseased carcase. They had not been cleaned, as provided for by the slaughtering regulations. When he visited the defendants’ butcher shop in the township he found a quarter of beef hanging up that did not bear the licensee’s indelible registered stamp. Witness interviewed the butcher, who was in the shop. He asked him how he was off for beef, and he said he had plenty; there was another carcase hanging in the slaughterhouse. "Witness asked him what he was going to do with it, and he said (laughinrtyi that he was going to cut it up for the dogs. Witness asked if he intended bringing the carcase to the shop for the dogs. He did not answer this question. Witness asked him why he did not report the matter of the diseased cow to the department. He said, in reply, that he was only a servant, and had to do as he was told. He further said the licensee of the slaughterhouse was in Dunedin. When witness returned to Dunedin he found that the licensee had not reported the matter. It was reasonable to infer that this diseased animal would have been brought Into the shop and distributed among the firm’s customers. To Mr Macfarlane: He considered the beast he saw in the slaughterhouse on October 7 was the one which had been killed on October 4. This carcase should never have been dressed at all, as it must have been obvious to any butcher as soon as he began to cut it that the carcase was diseased. Regarding the charge of failure to brand, some brands were certainly not very clear, but they could always be seen on close examination.

For the defence Mr Macfarlane said that defendants had not proceeded to cut up the diseased beast after they found it was unsound. Defendant had come into town on the foilowing day with the intention of reporting to the department, but trouble wih his motor car and other business had intervened, and He forgot to do so. When ho returned in the evening he found that Inspector Fountain had already visited the slaughterhouse. George Watt, a butcher employed by Messrs Oram and Beer, said he had taken delivery of the two cows in question on October 5, and had killed them on the same day. They were not killed on October 4. He had not intended to kill the two cows, but on killing the first one he found it was diseased, and he left it hanging without splitting the carcase down. He had never intended to use this carcase, and he had reported it to Mr Beer, who had promised to notify the department. After killing the second cow, he had not thought it necessary to wash the cleaver, saw, and knives until he had cut up the bad carcase prior to burying it. There was no hot water at the slaughter yard, and all instruments were washed in cold water. Witness went on to explain that he had not destroyed the diseased beast as he understood that it had to ho inspected before it was destroyed. To Mr Fountain: He had killed the two co vs on the same day as he brought, them from Mr Allen’s saleyards at Waitati, and he h.ad cleaned only one side of the diseased beast. He was not awaro that any b. ccial provision was made for the disposal o! the offal, but in this case it had been taken away by a neighbour. , Here Mr fountain mentioned, to the »V''.*:i strata that when he visited the daughter-yard the diseased offal had been taken away by some children in a barrow, and on visiting the place to which it had been taken he saw it being boiled down for pig and fowl feed. Further questioned by Mr Fountain, Watt said he knew the regulations regarding diseased cattle, but could not explain why he had not reported the matter of the bad carcase. Ernest Clifford Beer said he was a partner in tin firm of Oram and Beer, of Waitat:. licensees of the slaughter-house in question. He had helped to kill the two cows mentioned, and in the case of the first one had noticed it was diseased. He and Watt had then left it hanging and killed the other one. He intended to report the matter to the department next day, but through pressure of business he had forgotten to do so. He had never had any intention of allowing the unsound carcase to bo used in his butcher’s shop. When knives were “green”—that was, immediately after using—he did not consider it necessary to employ boiling water for cleansing them. They could bo thoroughly cleansed by being wiped with a wot cloth. It was when the knife had a chance to become dry that sterilisation in boiling water was necessary. This closed the case for the defence. His Worship, after reviewing the evidence, sain Mr Fountain was justified in assuming that the carcase was intended for human consumption. The defendants’ explanation, however, was that there was no such intention. It had not been proved to his (Mr Bundle’s) satisfaction that the meat was meant for human consumption, but it certainly snowed extreme careless ness or the part of the de r endants. It was most important that the inspector should be notified at once of diseased stock passing through a slaughter-house. It was a most peculiar thing that a diseased carcase should be left hanging in the slaughterhouse for three days, and the duty was-ton the defendants to see that the carcase ano the offal were destroyed at once, or, at all events, rendered unfit for human consumption. Defendants apparently took no steps to do this until the matter had been brought under their notice The defendants would be convicted for failing to destroy the diseased carcase; ,at the same time he would accept their explanation that jAoy did not intend that it should go into •human consumption. He, however wished them to remember that it was very care lest of them. With regard to the charge of failing to keep knives, cleaver, and saw clean, the explanation of the defendants was that there was no hot water at the slaughter-house. The implements were used to skin and dress the other carcase after the diseased carcase had been skinned and dressed without being washed. This was gross carelessness. The obligation was on the defendants to keep these implements clean. It was mqst important that these provisions should be carried out On the charge of failing to stamp the quarter of the carcase, defendants would be convicted and discharged. On the charge of failing to destroy the diseased carcase defendants would he fined £lO, and on the charge of failing to dean knives, cleaver, and saw they would bo convicted and discharged. Defendants would be required to pay 7s costs.