UNDER-WEIGHT BREAD.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1624, 29 April 1919, Page 6

UNDER-WEIGHT BREAD.

THREE BAKERS CHARGED. SUBSTANTIAL FINES IMPOSED. "I find'that light-weight bread like the poor is always with us," remarked Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court this morning when three bakers were charged with selling lightweight bread. The Informations were laid under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908. Mr H. H. Loughnan appeared on behalf of the Public Health Department. The first case was that of ' Fraalt Needham (Mr T. Kincaid), a baker, of Stanrnqre Road, JJiohmond, /who was charged with selling to Mark Kershaw, an inspector of the Public Health Department, a loaf- supposed to be 21b in weight, which on being weighed, showed only lib 14oz Mr Loughnan said that the gravity of the offence lay in.the fact that the defendant had sold the loaf and had misrepresented its weight. The defend dant had been previously convicteu fo» selling underweight bread In April, 1915, and again in February, 1918. The inspector had also weighed 13 loaves, which" should have weighed 381b. The weight recorded was 361b 12oz. Allen Parker Dimmock, head baker to the defendant, said that, on the date of the offence, they had a slow oven to contend-with. This was due to the inferior coal supplied to bakers .at present. On the day in question, when the Oven.was opened, at the usual time for taking out the bread, it was found that the bread was not done.' Witness said that during the last six months they had lost . numerous customers through ' selling under-baked bread. When bread was well baked it lost moisture, but the same amount of food matter was there. He considered that the law should be amended to provide for the weighing of the dough and not the baked bread. ' ■ ■'■ ;• The Magistrate: The law says that you must supply full-weight, well-baked bread. . ' . ' * A fine of £ls arid costs was imposed. There was no appearanee of Charles Edwin, Boon,, baker, of" 221 Colombo Street, charged with selling a, 21b loaf that weighed only lib 13}oz. . Mr Loughnan said that 12 loaves had also been weighed. Their aggregate weight should, have, been 301b. The actual weight was only 291b 3oz. Accused had previously been convicted on October 4, 1918, for selling under-weight bread. A fine of £lO and costs was imposeck ■ In the third case Stac.ey and Hawker, cf Essex Street, were the defendants'. Mr 0. T. J. Alpers appeared, for them, and entered a plea of guilty to a charge" of selling a 21b loaf weighing only lib 15}oz.' ''■ ■■■■'• '' •■ . .'; '

Mr Alpers said.that his clients were in a.large way of business. There was • no suggestion of dishonesty against the defendants, who had installed in their bakehouse an elaborate weighing machine, costing £3OO, for the purpose of weighing out the dough accurately, The amount of dough weighed out for a 21b loaf was 21b 3soz. This amount of dough, under ordinary circumstances, should give a 21b loaf. Defendants baked about 1000 loaves at a time, and with this number there were bound to be variations. Mr Alpers pointed out that the deficiency in 12 loaves had been only 3ioz. Under tte present state of affaire, counsel' continued, a baker, who wished to be dishonest, need never ,be convicted. The inspectors of the department did not set traps for the baker and. they must be known to all the bakers. Therefore, all a dishonest baker, who, was wilfully selling under-weight bread needed to do when an inspector purchased a, loaf, was to declare that it waß undei weight. On * the other hand an honest baker, who believed his bread was full weight, was caught. Counsel also .pointed out that perhaps full weight bread turned out on a hot day would lose moistufe and in a few hours would be under weight. The baker contended that the dough should bo weighed and if that were of sufficient weight bread would not be short of food value. Mr Louglman said that men with such wide experience as the defendants phonld allow a greater margin for variation.They were cutting the margin too fine. The public had to bo protected. A fine of £5 and cofta was imposed.