Weighing Tea in Packets.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2569, 21 August 1899, Page 3

Weighing Tea in Packets.

LIPTON, LIMITED, FINED FOR INFRINGING THE ACT. An important case was disposed of at the Worship-street Police-Court London when on June 15th summonses against Lipton and Co,, l imited, were heard before Mr Cluer. There were three summonses, which alleged that on a certain date the defendants sold tea to which a false trade description or statement as to the weight of the said goods was applied, contrary to Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 188,7- Two other summonses charged them with using unstamped and defective weights. Mr Avory, who prosecuted, said the summonses had been taken odt with a view to test the validity of the practice of weighing paper with tea. The defendants, whose practice was to sell tea in packets, pursued the practice of weighing in the paper, lead, and otherwise in with the tea, and he believed it would not be contested that that was their practice. If it was, he should show that the result of weighing the test packets purchased was that the actual weight of tea was deficient. Evidence having been given of the purchase of three packets of tea of different weights, Mr Carson, for the defence, said that Lipton’s had so farpnrsued a universal practice of the trade, and would claim a right to do it until told they were wrong. The charge was not one of fraud. The charge was made by a rival in trade, partly because he was a rival, and partly for self-advertisement. Bpt the defendants had done no more than w«s the of ti}e trade. What was sold was the tea, and the paper in which it was \yrgpped and the lablea were no false description. Eyidenpe as lo the practice of the trade in weighing paper with (he tea was given, managers of the United Kingdom Tea Company, the manager of the Home and Colonial Stores, Leverett and Fry, Limited, and others being call to say that it was universal.” The Magistrate, Mr Cluer said he came distinctly to the conclusion that the defendants were liable to be convicted on the summons. The answer was that it was not a false trade description to say that a certain article was not what it purported to be in weight without the paper. He thought not only that it was a false trade description, but it was against public policy, tie imposed a fine of £lO and fifteen

guineas costs. The summonses against the same company for using illegal weights were then proceeded with. An inspector proved visiting the company’s premises, and finding that to weigh the tea the girls employed were using a makeshift weight, which was below the standard jn the 11b., ilb., and 2oz=n For the defence, Mr Carson that it was done for convenience, as the weight was made for the quantities of tea required, less the weight of paper, which made up the proper weight for the packet. Mr Cluer suggested that the prosecution should be satisfied with the practice being stopped, and, this being agreed to the summonses were withdrawn.