BUTTER CASE DECISION INFORMATION DISMISSED.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15182, 29 March 1917, Page 8

BUTTER CASE DECISION

INFORMATION DISMISSED.

MB HEWITT, S.M. GIVES' JUDGMENT. , Reserved judgment was given in the* Magistrate’s, Court yesterday by Mr L. 6. li. Hewitt, S.M., in the case in .which John Eernohan was charged that on. November 31, 1916, he did sell to Thomas Pieter, an Inspector under the Pure Foods Act, butter containing more water than allowed by the regulations. It was alleged that the bntter contained 17.89 per cent, of water, the amount of water allowed in butter under the Food and Drugs Act being 16 per cent.. His Worship said the Inspector in his evidence admitted that the only means of ascertaining whether there was an excess of water in butter was by analysis only, and that short of analysis he knew of no other alternative means by' which', a retailer could ascertain the amount of water. In this case the defendant obtained a weekly supply of bntter from a wholesale, firm, and retailed it at lib lots winch were wrapped up and marked by the firm making the butter. “I have been unable to find any direct authority in New Zealand and Australian cases,’’ said His Worship, “but the nnglish cases show that the pnoviaieme of the Food and Drugs.Act must be very strictly construed in the interests of the public. The provisions of the English Act, however, are slightly different to the New Zealand Act, as in : the farmer there is an absolute prohibition and no means given , for defendant excusing himself. The New Zealand Act, however, provides for two defences:— (X.) That the defendant held a written warranty from the person supplying the butter. (2.) That defendant had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the nature of the batter.” Continuing, His Worship said, “In the case of water in the bntter the inspector also admitted that the only step that conld be taken was complete analysis where the sale was not from one bulk of bntter. Bat in the circumstances, I consider that defendant is not required to go the length of analysing a part of each box of butter he gets. In any case he cannot be certain that the butter in each box he receives was made at the same time, and so, in analysing a portion, he would have no guarantee as to the rest of the box. The public is protected in such a case as this by section 11 of the Act.” “If the sale were from bulk,” His Worship concluded, “ then analysis might be necessary. The information is dismissed.” At the nearing, Mr Gohns prosecuted and Mr N. G. Armstrong appeared for defendant.