MEAT BOARD CAN PROSECUTE FOR FRAUD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17835, 1 May 1926, Page 8

MEAT BOARD CAN PROSECUTE FOR FRAUD.

PURE FOODS ACT GIVES POWER TO SUE SELLERS OF FAKE “CANTERBURY.” Wrongful retailing of meat as "New Zealand,” on the Home market, has been worrying the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board. It has been found that it is useless to initiate proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Act for fraudulent sale, but that the Pure Foods and Drugs Act provides a vehicle for fairly easy prosecutions. The High Commissioner, Sir James Allen, has written to the President of the Board of Trade, Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister, showing the necessity for an amendment of the Merchandise Marks Act The difficulty in regard to prosecutions under this Act was found when proceedings were initiated against a store advertising “Canterbury Lamb, legs lOd, shoulders 9d, loins Bd.” These prices were practically below wholesale cost. The Board states that this was a clear case of wrongful retailing, as the salesman definitely sold to its officer Argentine lamb branded with their indelible stamp, for Canterbury lamb In addition to the advertisement, the officer had the evidence of the Argentine ticket which he took from the car

The whole circumstances were reported to the solicitors for the New Zealand Government to take action, but after they had taken the opinion of eminent counsel, they advised the High Commissioner that it would be useless going on with the case, as the Board could proceed against them only on a fraudulent sale, and under this section it was absolutely necessary that an invoice or description in writing be obtained. This point was tested by the Appeal Court, and it had no hesitation in saying the Board would lose its case.

“This goes to show,,” continues the Board’s report, “how impossible it will be to obtain any conviction under the Merchandise Marks Act for fraudulent sale. Sir James Allen has written fuliy giving the facts of this case, to the President of the Board of Trade, Sir P. Cuncliffe-Lister, showing the necessity for an amendment of the present Act. The King’s speech at the opening of Parliament recently, indicated that a new Merchandise Marks Bill will be brought in by the Government shoiClv and if the proposals of the Imperial Economic Committee are carried out in framing this Bill, it will throw the responsibility on to every retailer clearly to mark his goods with the country of origin. This will make it very much easier for us to obtain a prosecution.. “While we were placing the facts of the above case before our lawyers, the newspapers reported the prosecution of a housewife in the suburbs of London against a butcher for supplying Argentine chilled beef for English Home killed. This information was laid by the housewife herself under the Pure Foods and Drugs Act, and it will be noticed from the full reports extracted from the Meat Trades Journal,

that the case was not nearly so strong as the evidence we had in our case This was the first the Board had heard of a prosecution under this Act, and its solicitors were very surprised when this case was brought before them, as evidently they had no knowledge that that the Board could prosecute under this Act. Under this Act, it is not necessary to ask for a certificate, but merely to make a sale, and take delivery, and prove that the goods were not as verb ally described. Now that we have this knowledge, it will be an easier thing to obtain a prosecution, as it was practically impossible to obtain a prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act.”