SALE OF CREAM

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 79, Issue 7147, 19 December 1949, Page 6

SALE OF CREAM

STATEMENT OF INTEREST TO CONSUMERS The attention of readers is drawn to an advertisement by the Te Awamutu milk vendors relative to the supply of cream. Cream will be delivered loose, in minimum quantities of haif a pint, and consumers are urged to put out suitable containers for their cream. All carton cream at present delivered to permit holders will be suspended during the period of relaxation of control, but these consumers will, naturally, still be able to obtain cream under the new system, but in quantities of not less than half a pint. Weatherproof Cover e In the interests of public health, containers put out by consumers must be supplied with a weatherproof cover to obviate the risk of contamination. No mjl’k bottles, fickle bottles or narrow neck bcfttlpis scan be filled with cream because of the difficulty in pouring without spillage. Shops and dairies drawing cream for sale will be required to note that (a) they will have to supply their own containers and (b) no returns of unsold cream will be accepted. The two days’ notice of order and. cancellation will also apply to dairies. A new Price Order has been advised, and cream, as from Monday, will be 8d per quarter pint, but as the facilities are not available to supply .ess than half pints the price will be Is 4d per half pint.

reason to disbelieve Dr Hiskens’ contusions, however. The Court was adjourned again and returned later with the verdict. Mr Grant, in giving the decision reached by himself and Mr Sterritt, said they had been presented with some difficulty by the conflicting evidence. The onus had been on the prosecution to present evidence to show that the defendant was guilty, and they had done so. Dr Calvert gAve a very fair certificate and he had been given the opportunity to see and hear the defendant. He still did not want to qualify his certificate and he also had the first opportunity of examining the defendant. The Court had no reason despite the conflicting evidence, to doubt the traffic officer’s evidence and there was no need to go any further into the evidence for the defence. The defendant had been in the hotel for a long time and had admitted taking ten shandies. Sergeant Bisset and Constable Williamson had both stated that the defendant was a borderline drunk when seen in the Police Station. It was the duty to convict the defendant if the Court was satisfied that his judgement had been impaired. There was no hesitation in finding that he was intoxicated in charge of a motor vehicle and it was proposed to fine the defendant £lO and capcel his drivinglicense for one year unless special reasons could be brought to show why that should not be done. Mr Hill said that there were special reasons. The defendant was a farmer managing a farm and it would be appreciated that it was essential that he should be able to come to town and be able to have some means of conveyance. Mr Hill stated that he knew that there was no one who could take over the driving- of the car for him. It was essential to production and the we.fare of the people that the Court should consider other means of appropriate judgement other than the cancellation of the defendant’s license. He stated that he could submit that it was not a serious case. Dr Calvert had not altered his statement in any way nor had he contradicated that of Doctor Hiskens. It was not a serious* case as the defendant had not been rolling in the street and there had been no accident. The court might be able to consider a lesser period of revocation or a more substantial fine in excess of £lO. Mr Grant stated that the Court could not accept those reasons as a result of there bing a special decision from the Lord Chief Justice in regard to special reasons in such, cases. Mr Hill submitted that Mir Freeman, S.Mi, had seen fit to inflict heavier fines without cancellation of licenses in similar cases. Mr Hill was permitted to leave the Court to/examine the decision, and he returned to state that it was an English decision which had not as yet been made available for counsel. Any special reasons which he could give in the Court wou’d not affect in any way the judgment which was given by the Court, and the decision of the Lord Chief Justice discounted his submissions of special reasons. Defendant was accordingly convicted as stated above.

The special decision referred to in the above case was from the English Lord Chief Justice, and stated that special reasons could not be accepted where they attempted to alleviate financial hardship to the defendant.