MEAT PROSECUTION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 463, 23 March 1909, Page 2

MEAT PROSECUTION.

INTERESTING POINTS RAISED, THE LINLEY SYSTEM. Tlio Linley system of preserving moat for export eiuno under review in a prosecution at Glasgow recently. It was a caso ui which Messrs. Duncan l'erritt and Son, meat sales-? men, of Glasgow, were prosecuted by ino Glasgow Town Clerk for having exposed lor sale lor human food a quantity of joiuts of beef, which were unfit for such purpose. Tho chief witness was Alexander Trotter, tho veterinarian who has become notorious lately by his wholesalo condemnations of Now Zealand boned beef. Inspector Trotter said ho was informed that tho pieces of meat camo from tho Argentine Republic. It took a mail' steamer about 23 or 25 days to come from Buenos Ayros. He had no means of knowing how before shipment tho meat had been killed. Tho pieces of beef were sent up and deposited in tho detention chamber about a quarter past six o'clock that evening. On tho following day—Friday, December '25—ho mado a careful examination of tho moat. Ho found all tho 37 pieces to be moulded moro or loss, and all undergoing decomposition. Cuunsel: Were they in your opinion fit for human food?—No, sir, they xvcro not. Eleven of tho forelegs snowed deliberate cutting with a knife. l'or what purpose?— Evidently to remove mould. There was also evidence of rubbing. Ilii made incisions in tho meat for tlio purpose of testing it. When it was first cut it displayed a putrofactivo odour. In other words it was under decomposition. Did you observe anything regarding tho fat of tlioso different items? —The fat was rancid, and had a dirty-grey appearance. Tho dirty-grey colour of the fat indicated a change from the normal, 110 cooked part of the meat, and it gavo off nil offensive odour. When tasted it was bitter and nauseous. In hoth those respects it was,, in his opinion, unfit for human food. Witness, in tho course of further examination, said the result of cultures ho had made satisfied him that there was no doubt that tho moat was undergoing decomposition, aJid Was actually in a state of putrefaction. Summarising tho results of his examinations, ha stated that in tho first place they had tbo appearanco of the meat to go upon. It had a very had appearance. It was grown over with mould, clearly indicating that there Was something far wrong. Then, when they examined it by cutting and smolling, they found a sour to a distinctly putrefying odour. The colour, too, was darker and duller—it was off tone. Examined by touch, tho meat was found to bo spongy and sticky. There was an abnormal change in the fat from that on perfectly sound meat. It was rancid and. discoloured. In addition to that, they were satisfied that tho meat had bocn tampered with. The tampering was easily noticeable by the cutting. A butcher should havo been ablo to detect that for himself—that was, a butcher who was accustomed to deal in dead meat should with reasonable care hare'known that tho meat was unfit for human food. Cross-examined by Mr. Scott Dickson: When you saw the meat was it quite clear that it was bad?—l had to examine it carefully before making up my mind.But you started by saying that it appeared to be unsound, etc.—Yes; but ill Glasgow we always like to bo certain. There was a considerable trado done in Argentine meat. Tho meat in question was not chilled meat in the proper sense. It was preserved by _ tho Linlcy process, for which it Was claimed that tlio meat could bo brought across similar to Home meat. It was no doubt correct to say.that it underwent a process at a low temperature* The Linlcy process was the sterilising of tho carcass for about an hour, and then the sterilising material was driven off, and dry air was turned (HI. What objection is there to removing mould either by 'cutting or by rubbing P—Beeauso such action prevents tlio retail butcher seeing tho proper condition of tho moat. Ho did not know if mould was very often found in meat of tho Linlcy process, because that was his first experience of tho Linley process. He had known of meat of that process for tho last six or seven months, but that was the first consignment sent to tho Glasgow .Market tliat he had seen. Ho was not aware that for years past meat of tho Linley process was in tho Glasgow Market. He had hoard of one previous consignment, but lie never saw it. He held that mould on fresh meat was always evidence that the meat had been kept in unhygienic conditions favouring decomposition. So far as ho knew, there was no provision in any statute either preventing the removal of mould or requiring the people in possession of tlio meat to send for an inspector. Then why do you suggest that either cutting or nibbing is improper?— Because it was a clear indication to mo that tho butcher, or whoever did the cutting or rubbing, saw or had full knowledge tliat the mould was deleterious or detracted from ifca commercial value. Then you mean to tell me that no man is to do anything to make his meat less deleterious in appearanco .without communicating with the meat inspector?— Quito so; ho can d'> when he likes. But is there any crime or any offence in if ?—No; hut at the same time it shows that tlio exposer had a guilty knowledge of what ho was doing. A condition favouring mould favoured decomposition. : After further evidence tho cass was adjourned.