AN IMPORTANT NEW ZEALAND MEAT CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2666, 19 April 1905, Page 11

AN IMPORTANT NEW ZEALAND MEAT CASE.

ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF LABELS. (From Otjb Own Corbesi»ondent.) LONDON, February 24. *for a long time past Mr H. C. Cameron, sroduce Commissioner in London to the Mew Zealand Government, has been keepfttg an eye on meat contractors, and he wormed a suspicion that some of them were iv the habit of substituting meat other than New Zealand, in spite of their undertaking to supply New Zealand meat, and of attaching to the substituted meat the labels which had been attached in the first place to meat from the -.olony. But the practice, if it exists, is of course a difficult one to detect. At anyrate, a case of alleged substitution has now been brought before the courts, as I informed you last ■week would be the case. At the Marytebone Police Court the day before yesterday, before the magistrate (Mr Paul Taylor), Arthur Craddock, described as a member of a firm of meat salesmen, was summoned at the instance of the London County Council, in conjunction -witfiythe Agent-general for New Zealand, as alleged, applying certain New Zealand Refrigerating Company's labels to Australi^i^lambs supplied under contracts held. . Among "those present in' court I noticed Mr Cameron and Mr A. W. Pottinger (Christchurch Meat Company). The London County Council was represented by Mr Horace Avorr, K.C. and Mr H. W. Rowsell, while Mr Clarke Hall and Mr Freeman appeared for the defence. Before the opening of the case Mr Clarke Hall raised the objection that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the^sase. The question was one of contract. The defendant was summoned for having sold certain articles — pieces of mpat — with a false trade description. In order that the defendant might be brought within the jurisdiction of the court he must have sold ihe meat within the .jurisdiction of the court. There were tw\> conditions "attached to the contract of the defendant. The goods were to be delivered at the Asylum — the asylums contracted for being those at Colney Hatch and Banstead respectively — free of charge to the Asylum Committee ; and if, in the opinion of the committee, the goods were not- as stipulated, either as to- quality or otherwise, they could be rejected by the committee.' Tnis showed clearly that the sale was not complete until the goods had, in fact, been delivered at

either the Banstead or Colney Hatch Asylums. The committee reserved the right to reject, and therefore the sale was not complete.

For tne prosecution, Mr Horace Avory contended that the goods were sold at • defendant's place of business, the contract being between the London County Council and Messrs Druce and Craddock, to supply meat at 51-53 Weymouth street, Portland place — the business place of (he contractors. The magistrate decided to hear tbe case. The complaint, said Mr Avorv. was

lodged under section 2 of the Merchandise

Marks Act, subsection 2, and the defandant was charged with having sold certain carcases of lamb with a false trade description applied- to them. The false trade

description in this case alleged was " New Zealand meat. There were two summonses, and these would be taken together. Mr Clarke Hall agreed to this course. Continuing, Mr Avory said the first sifnimons related to the sale of five carcases of lamb, delivered on the 3rd February., last at the Banstead Asylum ; the second sunainons related to eight carcases or lamb delivered at Colney Hatch on the 6th February. In the earlier lot the meat had. been marked "New Zealand meat," while Ihe second lot had "New Zealand meat; the Chris tc-hurch Meat Company, Canterbury, N.Z." on it. The contract had been made last October, and, among other things, the defendant contracted to deliver New Zealand lamb at 6s 2d per stone of 141b. On the 3rd February the five carcases of lamb were delivered at Banstead Asylum, all bearing a label, which also bore the words : " This meat was killed and dressed under my supervision at the North British and Hawke's Bay Freezing Works.*' The man in oharge lat the asylum, who received the lambs, suspected thai they were not New Zealand, but were inferior Australian meat. The same day a storekeeper of the London County Council came to the same conclusion. The matter Tras reported, and the Committee of the London County Council called in am authority on the matter — a gentleman connected with the Government of New Zea- i land, — who went down, and was satisfied that the lambs were not from New Zealand, but were inferior lambs from Australia, worth in the market, at least 2d per lb less than New Zealand lambs.

On the 6th February, continued counsel, eight carcases were delivered at Colney Hatch, and in the same way there was suspicion. Mr H. C. Caineron -and an ex-j.-ert from the meat market were called in, and. they were quite clear that the meat was not New Zealand meat at all. He should add that in the description upon the Coiney Hatch meat there was an additional description : " This meat was killed and dressed under my supervision at the Christ church Meat Company's Works, and certify it is free from disease." On the back of the label were the words : "C.MC Canterbury, N.Z." There was this further fact, the labels had been taken off genuine New Zealand meat and had been fixed to this Australian lamb. But tbe labels were not lamb labels, but sheep iabels, for the weight given on the back ranged from 751b to 82lb. The defendant's contract was that the lambs were to be about 401b. A defence open to the defendant' was that he had (no reason to suspect that there was anything wrong in the description. But the Committee pi the London County Council had made inquiry of defendant as to where he had obtained "he lambs delivered. In an interview he

(defendant) said he was not able to tell where the Banstead lambs came from; they had probably been bought in the Central Meat Market. As to the Colney Hatch lot, he gave the name of a firm in the Meat Market from whom he said he got the iamb.

But, continued counsel, from the evidence he (Mr Avory) would call, he thought the magistrate would have no doubt that any man in the trade could tell at once, by looking, frbe difference between NewZealand meat and that from Australia. If that was so, it was impossible for the defendant to say that he had no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trade desciiption. Whether the labels were put on in defendant's shop, the London County Council did not know. If they were the defendant was guilf.y ; if they were not put on in the shop, he (Mr Avory) would submit that the defendant could not say that he had no reason to euspeet the genuinesness of the trade descriptions applied. The defendant must have known what he was supplying.

Mr H. P. Keen, clerk to the Committee of the London County Council, produced the defendant's contract, and Mr J. W. Page, storekeeper at Banstead, said he had suspected the goods because the covers had been taken off. The labels bore the certificate of the Agricultural Department of New Zealand.

Cross-examined • The meat had been consumed. It was kept a week. Witness could not say why the defendants had not had an opportunity of seeing the meat again before it was eaten. The lamb was thinner than New Zealand lamb.

Mr Clarke Hall: February 3 was just about the time when old season's lambs would be exhausted, and new season's coming in? — That would be so.

And the lambs killed at the end of the Fearon would be thinner? — I cannot say that.

Is it not difficult to tell the difference between New Zealand lamb a 0' Australian lamb after it is thawed? — I don't think it would be any harder to tell.

A man would not put 801b on a lamb of 401b if he intended to deceive? — Not unless the labels were overlooked.

Mr Mallett, storekeeper at Colney Hatch, was next called, and gave evidence as to the receipt of the meat and the suspicions aroused. <* Mr C'arke Hall asked that all witnesses who were to give expert evidence should be ordered out of court. The distinction between Australian and New Zealand lamb was so subtle.

Expert witnesses were thereupon asked to leave the court.

Mr W. F. Ohaoman, also of the London County Council, said that Mr Cameron, Mr Mallett, and Mr Pottinger had been taken to Colney Hatch to see the lambs. The labels used were sheep labels. Mr Clarke Hall: What is the difference "between Australian and New Zealand lamb?

Witness : New Zealand meat is the best? dressed and best quality sheep and lambs in the market. These carcases looked lesgy ; they Looked like tegs. Continuing, Witness said hie could not tell the difference as an expert between Australian and New Zealand lamb except by the quality. He should say decidedly these were not new season's lambs.

The Magistrate said he had been thinking over the point as to jurisdiction raised by Mr Clarke Hall. Assuming Mr Clarke Hall's contention to be correct — namely, that the sale did not take place until the meat was accepted, it might be extremely doubtful whether he hod jurisdiction, especially as to the Banstead case.

Counsel for the prosecution thought there could be no question about that if it was assumed that there was mo sale until delivery was taken. He argued, however, that Mr Clarke Hall's contention was not correct ."

Mr Paul Taylor said if the contract was not a sale, it was a contract £or a sale.

Mr Avory said he would take a short cut by asking for a further summons against the defendant for having these goods in his possession for sale. _Mr Clarke Hall said if there was a conviction he should appeal on the point. At this stage the hearing was adjourned for a fortnight, the point raised by Mr Clarke Hall to be considered before the adjourned hearing. A fnrther summons was granted agaiast the defendant for having the goods in his possession.