LIGHT-WEIGHT BREAD

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160736, 24 August 1920, Page 5

LIGHT-WEIGHT BREAD

INTERESTING POINTS RAISED. At the Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., Henry H. Hopley appeared to answer two charges of selling light-weight bread. Mr Hutton prosecuted for the Department, and Mr Hussey appeared for defendant. Inspector Bargeter said that on April 13 he visited defendant’s shop, and after purchasing bread found that three loaves proved to be 60/, short weight, and two were sjoz short each. John H. Cowdrey, Inspector under the Pood and Drugs Act, corroborated Mr Pargeter regarding the weighing of the bread Some of the loaves in the shop had tickets indicating that they were Iflb, while some they weighed and found short-weight were not.

Defendant stated that all his bread was weighed out at 21b 3oz. There was a shrinkage in the fancy bread of as much as T.oz. Prom a 'moral point of view he put weight tickets on the bottom of his fancy loaves. The Magistrate said that, from a moral asoect, it.would be preferable to jut the tickets on the top of the maves.

Defendant, continuing, said bis brown loaves were not the usual brown bread loaves, but what were known as malt bread, baked specially for medical demands. He claimed that this was not household bread under the Act. Ho also explained how certain classes of fancy bread required handling twice before going into the oven.

William S. Dustin corroborated defendant regarding the manufacture of fancy bread. A brown bread loaf should scale 1 Jib. The shrinkage in a twico-l-.andled loaf was greater than in ordinary bead. Mr Hussey claimed that fancy bread did not come within the meaning of the Act, and the latter applied to ordinary household loaves. There were, however, no regulations bearing; on the matter. He claimed than the prosecution could not succeed in the malt loaves, which were not ordinary bread. On the second charge ho also contended that it was all fancy broad that the inspector weighed. Ho also claimed that the inspector was not deceived and knew that the loaves were labelled IJlb. The Magistrate remarked that the inspector was not bound to look for the labels on the bread.

Mr Hutton raised the question that, although the trade recognised that there was such a thing as fancy bread, in New Zealand the law knows nothing of it,

Tlie Magistrate said brown bread seemed to come in an intermediate class, and a person would not be served with brown bread unless specially asking for it. Mr Hutton replied that a person could not be surprised if he received any of the other fancy loaves under review if he went into a shop and asked for bread and therefore the sale of these eculd mate no. difference in the liability under the section. The Magistrate said the case was a very interesting one. and of considerable importance to the baking trade. Therefore he would give a written judgment.

ANOTHER CASE. 33. Young, manager of the People’s Bakery, was also charged with selling light-weight bread on May 13. Mrs Taylor, Guyton Street, stated that she received the bread from the defendant company on May 13. Inspector Pargeter said he subsequently purchased a loaf of bread at Mrs Taylor’s shop, and found it short-weight. He understood Mr Young was manager of the People’s Bakery. Mr Hussey submitted that there was no proof that Mr Young was manager of the bakery at tbe time, and that be sold the short-weight bread. The Magistrate said he had evidence of a sale, and it rested with Young to prove that the bread was tbe proper weight when supplied to Mrs Taylor. Mr Hussey said the time of sale to the Inspector was not the time of sale from the bakery to Mrs Taylor, and no one could say what had happened to the loaf in the interval.

The Magistrate said he had no evidence'of the time Mrs Taylor got the loaf. It may have been reduced in weight through its location in tbe shop. Tbe time of it arriving at the shop, and how it was located afterwards before being sold to tbe Inspector could be got, and another information laid. Therefore, he would dismiss cue present information without prejudice.