MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22507, 15 September 1938, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

WEDNESDAY (Before Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M.» CHARGES DISMISSED The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mr J. K. Moloney) proceeded against William West (Mr W. R. Lascelles), a pig farmer, of Shirley, on two counts of .failing to provide proper shelter for pigs. David James White, inspector for the societv, in evidence, said that he visited the defendant’s farm and found the conditions there appalling. He saw a sow and litter in one sty which did not provide adequate protection from the weather. Another sty in which there were nine pigs was also open to the weather. The sow was in a. very emaciated condition. The condition ’of the whole place was one of slush and filth. On a second visit the chairman and a member of the committee of the society accompanied witness, and one of the party became sick because of the stench, and he had to leave the place. The farm carried about 300 pigs. It was next to the Shirley golf links. John Hill, a witness, said he had never seen such a filthy pig farm in his life. He had seen pig farms in England, Australia, and in various parts of New Zealand. The evidence of the defendant showed that the farm was one of 60 acres. The ground was light and sandy. Witness had been a pig farmer for 13 years. The recent winter, witness said, was the wettest he had ever experienced and would account for the wet and muddy condition of his farm which, he said, was drier than most others at the time. Witness declared that the shelter provided on his sties was quite adequate and consisted of galvanised iron over a layer of straw supported by wire netting. Horace Ernest Martin, a veterinary surgeon, considered that the sties were good and provided adequate shelter. If all the pig farm's in the Dominion had similar facilities there would be no cause for complaint, he said. The Magistrate, in dismissing both informations, said he was not concerned with the general condition of the farm. There were two informations of “omitting to provide adequate shelter.” From the evidence given by the defence, which Included expert opinions, he could not convict op the score of inadequate shelter. UNLAWFUL IMMIGRANT

George Anselm Hein, a German, aged 35, was charged with a breach of the Immigration Restriction Act in that he unlawfully landed in New Zea r defendant admitted that he was a prohibited immigrant. Sub-Inspector W. E. Packer said that In June the defendant was convicted and sentenced to three month’s imprisonment, With a provision that if a German ship arrived during the term he should be deported. A German ship was now in New Zealand waters and it would be convenient to send the defendant away on the vessel. The Magistrate made an order accordingly. THEFT OF SKATES

Douglas Phillip Christian, aged 24, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months, for the theft of a pair of roller skates. EVASION OF FARE

Mabel Richardson was convicted and ordered to pay costs for evading the payment of her fare on the North Beach trolley-bus. WANDERING STOCK

The Heathcote County Council proceeded against Charles Alfred Walker for allowing five cows to wander at. large on Page’s road. The Magistrate, in imposing a fine of 10s and ordering the defendant to pay. costs, said that because of the great amount of' traffic on the roads, wandering stock was a menace to human life, and by-laws governing the offence must be rigidly complied with. DEFICIENCY IN MILK

The Department of Health (Mr A. W. Brown) proceeded against the Milk Producers’ Co-operative Company, Ltd. (Mr R. Twyneham), on a charge of enclosing in a package milk that did not come up to the required standard in milk fat test.

Counsel for the defendant company submitted that if prosecutions were made in cases such as these, suppliers would have no protection against interference with the milk by resellers. On the day the department’s inspector purchased a bottle of milk, which was deficient, from a Sumner reseller, he

purchased a bottle at another shop supplied by the company, and the test was considerably higher than that re* quired. The company would have no defence without injuring the honesty of its customers. Mr Brown contended that the defendants still bad an opportunity of disputing the analyst’s test because three samples were always taken, and one kept for use in the case of dispute. The defendant company was convicted and fined £4 and ordered to pay costs.