TOO MUCH UNDERWEIGHT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16558, 18 October 1921, Page 7

TOO MUCH UNDERWEIGHT.

THE BUTTER STANDARD, FACTORIES FINED, Tn imposing fines on factories for selling underweight butter t Air S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., said this morning:— “ It is important not only to the defendant companies* hut also to tho consuming public that only the correct weight should* be sold. A very few drams under or over weight would, keeping in view th© magnitude of the output of each company, result in an annual loss of several thousands of pounds either to the company or to the public at large. . . . “ Ono cannot blind oneself to the fact that these underweight prosecutions are recurring factors in judicial life and the trend of events is for goods to be sold underweight. If the Court can safely be challenged to se© a test made (as was done in these cases), to see the machines at work, what is the explanation of the machines cutting amiss and thus giving rise to these prosecutions “ The peoplo of this Dominion are paying a high price for their butter, and they are entitled, not to overweight, but to full net weight. Tlie Legislature is putting no undue strain on our manufacturers and merchants. There is no compulsion in their undertaking tho sale of food in packets. All that the Legislature demands is that these persons will fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations. If for the sake of speed they choose to invoke the aid of delicate machinery for the purpose of weighing and subdivision, they must see that this machinery is honestly used and kept In a state of efficiency. “The selling of food under weight is adding materially to the cost of living. It may be suggested that the workers can use dripping and margerm© in lieu of butter. The answer to this is that butter contains essential factors for body-building which aro absent from dripning and margerine. Growing children require a plentiful supply of butter.” The Central Dairy Company, Ltd., was convicted and fined £ls on one of the following two charges:—(a) That tho company sold butter in a package that weighed 15 ounces 11 drams instead of lib ; (b) that the company committed a breach of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1909, by attaching ft false or misleading statement to a. package. The Tai Tapu Dairy Company, Ltd., was convicted and fined £3O on one of two similar charges. The prosecution stated that the Tai Tapu Company had been previously convicted for selling underweight butter.” Tn the course of his judgment Air 'M’Carthy said : “ The fact that in the case of each company six packets taken at random from a receptacle whence they were to be sent for sale were found to be materially underweight, strongly suggests the inference that either through carelessness or design tho defendant companies were selling underweight butter.” Pending decisions as to whether or not the defendant companies would appeal, the Magistrate, at the prosecutor’s request, adjourned consideration of which charge against each company should be withdrawn, and on which charge the fine should be entered. Air AI. J. Gresson appeared for the Central Company and Mr O. T. J. Alpers for the Tai Tapu Company. WATER IN THE MILK. The Christchurch Dairy Company, Ltd., was convicted and fined £5 Is, with costs, on a charge of soiling milk that was not up to tho standard. In a head-note to his reserved deision Air Al’Carthy said: “Where the servant of tho defendant company, which is a milk vendor, dishonestly sold to a third party a small quantity of milk and replaced it with water, and thereafter sold the watered milk, the defendant company is responsible for the act of its servant in selling such watered milk, notwithstanding it may have been up to standard when it left the defendant company’s milk factory under the servant’s control, and notwithstanding the defendant company was unaware of the watering of the milk and its subsequent- sale. The only relevance of the absence of mala fides on, the part of the defendant company is in fixing the amount of the penalty.” Air A. F. Wright appeared for the company and Air A. T. Donnelly, Crown Solicitor, for the informant.