UNDER-WEIGHT BREAD.

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

UNDER-WEIGHT BREAD.

THREE BAKERS CHARGED. SUBSTANTIAL PINES IMPOSED. "I find that light-weight bread like' the poor is always with us," remarket 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 Frank Needham (Mr T. Kincaid), a baker, of Stanmore Road, Richmond, who was charged with selling to Mark Kershaw, an inspector of the Public Health De£ partment, a loaf supposed to be 2"lb" in weight, which jon 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 defendant had been previously convicted for telling underweight bread in April, 1915, and again in February, 1918. The inspector had also weighed 13 loaveg, which shonld 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 alow dvsri to contend with. This was due-to the inferior coal supplied to bakers aft 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 uDder-baked bread. When bread was well baked it lost moisture, but the saine amount of food matter He considered, that the law should be amended to provide for the weighing of the dough and nol the baked bread. ••-'•"■• The Magistrate: The law says that you must supply fuJl-weight, well-baked bread. .

A fine of £ls and costs was imposed. There was no appearance of Charles Edwin Boon, baker,, of 221 Colombo Street, ehaTged with selling.p 21b loaf that weighed only lib 13j(pz. Mr Loughnan said that 12' loaves had also i been weighed* Their aggregate weight should' have been 801b. Th 6 actual weight was only 291b 3pz. Accused had previously been convicted on October 4, 1918, for selling under-weight bread. A fine of £lO and costs was imposed. In the third ease Stacey cf Essex Street, were the defendants. Mr O. T. J. Alpers appeared for them and entered a plea of guilty to a charge of selling a 21b loaf weighing only Mb 151oz; - 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 tie purpose of weighing out the dough accurately. The amount of dough weighed out for a 21b loaf was 21b.3|0z. This amount of dough, under ordinary should give" a 21b loaf. Defendants baked about 1000 loaves at a time, and with this number there we*e bound to be variations. Mr Alpers pointed out that the deficiency in 12 loaves had l»een only 3jSoz. Under.tho present state of affaire., counsel continued, a baker, who wished tb be dishonest, need never be convicted. The inspectors of the department did ho* set traps for the baker and they must be known to all the bakers. Therefore, aH a dishonest baker, who was wilfully selling under-weight bread needed to do wheo an inspector purchased a loaf, was to declare that it was under weight. On tho 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 moisture and in a few hours would be under weight. The baker contended that tho dough should be weighed and if that were of sufficient w;ei«ht bread would not be short of foo* value. ■• „ Mr Loughnan said that men with row wide experience as the defendants shenli allow a greater margin for variatien. They were cutting tho margin too fine* The public had to be protected. A fine of £5 and costs was Imposed.