WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 13012, 27 June 1906, Page 7

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

PROSECUTIONS* AT OKRALDIXK. At Geraldine, yesterday, before Messrs W. S. Maslin and Ger>. Taylor, J.P.'s. the Inspector of Weight* and Measures bid •complaints against several trade? people for weights and rueas- | urea in their possession. I -Sub-Inspector Green prosecuted. The Inspector of Weights and Measures, v. S. Hitcbens''tWinchester}, for having in ■Jhis possession, three unstamped weights. The defendant stated that he had lost three- of the-smallest weights seldom used in his business and" had replaced them with new onesiwhklr had" not beerrstamped. The stamped. > Defendant wja fined ss, and coa?*. The Sun* tL W. A. Dawson, Gfcraidme, for haying four unstamped yard measures in his .possession- - ' Defendant stated that his meAsnre* were perfectly correct, and complained Chit there* was ik> convenience in Geraldin*''foe-hivi ing them stamped. Ifc was absurd tor expect shopkeepers fo-go to. the expense of tri.teßmig tt> Tinmu to comply with-a technicality ofiihelaw; ■•:": .__ - Defendant jrasHlned 5s and"eoats.~* The Morrism for having m "their possession a weight unstamped and two yard sticks unstamped. Defendants '' stated that the weight- in question. wa ß a smaß one very seldom used in th« business and had been purchased t» replaee one that had been !o*t. The unstamped yard sticks, which h.wi been handed to the inspector bv one of the empLoyees were not in use "at the counter. They were sticks w sce d bv an Insura-Etce , Company as advertisements to give a war t.» their customers, stiii. althou-'u the regular stamped measures were in be the other* could have been made n-e of bv employees if they wished. I Defendants were fined 5s and .-■wfc» in each case. Sam* v. J. S*. Pyc for havin" " -.-,-1 stick unstamped. '"" " Defendant plea.le-l -niTtv ; ;n ir. ; --a 5s atd costi.

Same v. Bryant Bros., for having for sale a loaf of bread unstamped. Mr Farnie appeared for defendants. The defence was that the stamp had been sent to a tinsmith for repair and it had not beea returned in time. Defendant was fined the minimum penalty, 20s and costs. Same v. Bryant Bros., for having on sale a loaf of bread 4.J ounces short of the standard weight. Mr Farnie for defendants. Defendant pleaded not guilty and evidence was heard at length. The defence was that the usual and proper quantity of dough had been weighed out, and it must have been an accident that the loaf was short weight. The usual custom adopted was to use 4lbs 6oz of dough for 41b loaves and 21b So* for 2lb loaves. This had been followed.' Tin loaves evaporated more than batch loaves and the loaf produced had probably overbaked. The Bench held that if there was more shrinkage in tin loaves more dough should be used for this class of bread than the other. „ Defendant was fined £2 2s and costs—one set of costs in two cases. Same v. John Opie (Winchester) for having one loaf in his possession four ounces under weight. Mr Raymond appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The defence was similar to that of the previous case with the exception that defendant proved that only one loaf waa worthy of the inspector's attention. This loaf had been the last out of the oven and was a pan one. The inspector was asked to try the rest of the batch in the oven, but had no time to wait. The rest of th? batch went the full weight, and in some cases more. The loaf in question was kept back because it was the last out. Defendant used the customary quantity of | dough in every case, and gave the inspector j every facility to see that no fraud was ! worked on the public. Defendant was fined £2 2s and costs. The same v. John Opie (Mr Raymond) for having unstamped weights. Defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that the weights is question were old ones inherited from his predecessor, and were only used for stopping doors. He had a stamped set in use on the counter. Defendant was fined 5s and costs. Same v. John Opie (Mr Raymond) for having an unstamped loaf of bread in his possession. Defendant pleaded guilty, hut stated that he had instructed his baker to always stamp the bread and it was usually done. When the dough was inclined to run it was im-/ portanfc to get it into the oven quickTy and that W33 the reason why it was unstamped when the inspector called. Defendant was fined 20s and costs. _ Same v. P. Darragh for having one loaf of bread in his possession two ounces under weight. Defendant pleaded" guilty and was fined 2d and costs. ——————