INSPECTION OF SLAUGHTER. YARDS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2302, 14 April 1898, Page 14

INSPECTION OF SLAUGHTER. YARDS.

At Thursday's sitting of the Polics Court, before Mr B. H. Cavew, S.M., John Wald ; e was charged, on the information of J. A. Gilrulh, with Jhaving hindered and obstructed him in the performance of his duty by refusing h/in admittance into a slaujhteryard 'owned *nd worked by defendant at'& j .ikarai on' the 29th of March last. MrJ. F. M. Frsser appeared for the pro3ecuj tion, &nd Mr Cooke for the defendant, who . 'pleaded guilty. < | Mr Eraser stated that theipfoi'mation was j laid under tbe* 18th section of "The Stock Act-, J 1893.''' " Under thaSr act an inspector' was en1 titled to enter any place where he had reason to ' suspect thtre was stock, either living or dead, [ and that; when he was refused admission the , pffecder was liable to a penalby no exceeding ; £50, and not less than £2, and that when an I inspector was refused -" admission ib was j a fair assumption tbafc the defendant I had eometbins en his premises thai; ;he wished to " coccesl. Ou the date in , question Mr Grihuth saw caresses hanging up in the" yard, and dem&nded admission, but the defendant refused him permission, stating that he required notice. Counsel stated that he was instructed to pre=s for a sub-tantial penalty, as it was essential that; inspectors should obtain | prompt; admission into premises were Ihere was stock. This was* the firs!; time an inspector had been refused such permission, ' and consequently this wss the firsc time aa information of this kind had been laid. Mr Ccoke stated that his client, whose slaughfcerjard was in the Eoslyn Borough, had been in the habib of receiving notice Irom the local inspector o£ his intention to inspeeb, ana consequently thought that he "was wiihin his rights in demanding notice. Mr Frager • We can now. understand why the intervention pf theßcslyn Borough Council has been invoked to evade the intention of the Abattoirs ' Act, . His Worship: What is the penalty under the act for keeping diseased me&t on the J premises ? " f Mr Fraser: The aeb-does not contpijplafa i that diseased meat (should be kept. Directly we condemn a carcase precanHcns are taken bj the department to have the same promptly digested oi destroyed, and co prevented from going into consumption. His Worship : The offence is a serious one and I shall inflict a substantial penalty. Defendant is fined £5 and costs. Mr Fraaer : Your Worship sees that it would be absurd for an inspector to notify when ha intends to inspect ? ' \ His Worship-: Certainly. .'Bach-a fysfcenvlr w0.,33 iUftu no iccjgecboe at »U f