SHORT-WEIGHT COAL

Waikato Times, Volume 132, Issue 22152, 25 September 1943, Page 6

SHORT-WEIGHT COAL

FIRM ADMITS OFFENCE FINE OF £lO IMPOSED A case of interest, involving the selling of short-weight sacks of coal, was heard in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, yesterday, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., Frankton Supply Stores, Limited (Mr W. J. King), were charged with supplying coal short of the weight purported to be sold. Mr F. W. Ashby, inspector of factories, explained that under the regulations, sacks of coal for delivery must either be separately labelled or have dockets attached to show the weight of the contents. The driver of defendant company’s delivery van carried dockets but the weight shown on them was greater than the contents of the sacks. The weight of the coal was carefully checked by a department inspector and the deficiency in the weight of the 29 sacks delivered to 12 customers amounted to 1861 b., or nearly one two-thirds cwt. The average deficiency per customer was 15£lb. Everything was in favour of the seller, Mr Ashby pointed out, as on the day the check was made it had been raining heavily and the sacks of coal were saturated and in fact were dripping wet when put on the scales. The defendant company was previously convicted for the same class of offence in 1940. Possible Explanation Mr King said he had to agree that the offence should not have occurred, but pointed out that the employer had not known of the occurrence. The only explanation he could offer was that the scales must have caught. Mr Ashby pointed out that had the scales caught the defect would have had the effect of causing over-weight rather than short measure. The magistrate said the offences indicated by the inspector were of a serious nature. The quality of employees these days was poor, but employers had to take the consequences of their employees’ negligence. It was hardly thinkable that a reputable firm would short-weight their customers like this, and it looked as If the person responsible was the employee. The penalty, however, would need to be substantial as the public had to suffer. A fine of £lO was imposed.