Untitled

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XVII, Issue 5610, 6 May 1919, Page 3

When a Christchurch firm of bakers (Stacey and Hawker) Were charged with selling 2) ounces underweight thensolicitor (Mr Alpers) said that his clients wore in a large way of business. There was no suggestion of dishonesty against the defendants, who had installed in their bakehouse an elaborate wciighllng machine, icosting £3OO, tor the purpose of weighing out the dough accurately. The amount of dough weighed out for a 2lb loai was 21b This amount of dough, under ordinary circumstances, should give a 2'.b leak Defendants baked about 1000 loaves at a time, and with this number there were bound to be variations. Mr Alpers pointed out that the deficiency in 12, loaves had been only S-Joz. Under the pieseut state oif affairs, counsel continued, a baker, who wished to bo dishonest! need never be convicted. The inspectors of the department did not set traps fo r the baker, and they must he known to all the bakers. Tbereloir. «ll a dishonest baker, who was willuUv selling under-weight bread, needed to do when*an inspector purchased a leal, was to declare that it was under Weight. On the other hand, an honest baker, who believed his broad was full weight was caught. Counsel also pointed out that perhaps lull weight bread turned out on a hot day would lose moisture and in a few hours would lie under weight.