CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1243, 25 September 1875, Page 8

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, 16th September.

(Before H. S. Fish and J. S. Hickson, Esqs,,

Dangerous Goods Act.— Michael Dungan, storekeeper, Anderson's Bay, was summoned by Revenue Officer Lumb, under the Gth section of the Dangerous Goods Act, 18(59, with unlawfully keeping within 50 yarda of a building in which goods were stored 16 gallons of petroleum. — Mr Harris appeared for the defence.—lnformant deposed that on the 21st ult. he procured samples of kerosene from two separate cases iv the store of defendant. They were submitted to Professor Black for the purpose of analysis, and on the Gth inst. were reported to him to be petroleum— dangerous goods. Defendant thus rendered himself liable to a penalty of £20 for each day he had contraveued the section. Witness gave him 48 hours to remove the case?, which was not required by the Act, and, at the end of that time, in order to fortify himself with proper authority, he obtained a search warrant, and seized the goods, depositing them in the Kerosene Bond, appropriated by the Corporation for that purpose.— By Mr Harris : Witness had visited all the wholesale stores and bonds in the City, but had not been able to ascertain either the name of the importer or accredited agent of such goods. The tins he found in defendant's store contained four gallons, and had not been opened. They were original packages, as imported. Witness only took a sample of one or two tins in each case— not of the whole.— Professor Black, Pro vincial Analyist, produced the apparatus used in conducting hia analysis of tbe samples produced, the result being that they gave off an inflammable vapour at 108 degrees Fahrenheit : although he could not declare them to be dangerous on that account. There was no scientific definition of petroleum ; only an arbitrary one, and he could not state what its component parts were. He could not say what particular oils the samples produced contained, but they certainly possessed a bituminous substance. Witness believed that during his three years* residence in Dunedin the heat of the sun had never been above 110 degrees, and if a tin of the article produced was exposed to it, he did not think it would cause an explosion.— This was the case for the prosecution.— Mr Harris contended that no conviction couM lie, inasmuch as the 10 gallons of petroleum alleged to be stored on defendant's premises h/d not been tested, and could, therefore, not be called dangerous goods There was another weak point m the case, which, however, he did not wish to pre«s namely, that Dr Black, in making his analysis! had not confined himself strictly to the requirements of the Act.— Mr Fish upheld the objections taken by counsel, which he considered sufficient to justify the Bench in dismissing the the case. He would take this opportunity of stating that these prosecutions were looked upon by the Bench as most mischievous, and could _ only excite unnecessary grievance to tho trade in town. There could be no doubt at all as suggested by the learned counsel, that the Act was never intended to apply to kerosene the quality of that produced in Court, but only to oils of an inflammable, explosive, and dangerous, nature. It was proved by the evidence of Dr Black himself that it was almost next to an impossibility for any serious result to occur to the community by the storage of this kerosene in town, and it would be a stretching of the intention of the Act to inflict a fine upon these traders. If any persons were to be punished, it was not those who retailed the article, but those who imported it ; and if it was thought necessary by the Government to make a raid of this kind, they should instruct their officers to commence at the top of the tree and not at the bottom. The Bench felt very strongly the mischievousness of these prosecutions, and that the Government was making an unnecessary interference with traders. "Upon the grounds stated the Bench would dis*. miss the case, but if compelled to inflict a fine it would be one not exceeding a shilling. There was very great danger in the Act as framed by Government, which gave informant one half the penalty on conviction, and might be improperly used by a less scrupulous person than Sir Lumb. He might inform defendant that the safest course for him to adopt would be to take out a license allowing him to store oil upon his premises.— Mr Lumb intimated his intention of having the case tried at the Supreme Court. —Mr Pish afterwards had occasion to rebuke him for attempting to dictate to the Bench and interpret the Act. Similar charges against i'li'iy. Unflomau, AieliibalU Moir, and John Heftlfcjr, jyere with.dia.wi},