LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1487, 9 July 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

THE LOWER COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. ttidilcll, S.M.) THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S METHODSCITV MILK CASE. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Ihe rrcsh Food and Ice Company worn prosecuted, on tjic information of Karl A. Schauor, inspector under the Sale ofFood and Drugs Act. Tho charge was thai, on May 28, the company sold milk below the standard required by tlui Act. Mr M: Myers appeared for 'the Fresh rood and Ice Company. Inspector Schauer stated that, on May 2S, ho had obtained a sample of milk which was being delivered, by one Palmer (ono of the company's employees) to the Wellington Dairy 'Company. He had experienced some difficulty in getting possession of the sample, as Palmer would not at first sell him any. It was only after he produced his authority that I'nlmer permitted him to take away a bottle of milk. For this he had paid' 3d. Ho had taken the precaution of stirring the milk up in the can before ho filled the bottle. ilr. Myers contended tliat the method employed by the inspector was hardly a fair one. The Fresh Food and Ice Company had asked the Health Department to take samples of tho milk as soon as it arrived in town, but, apparently, this hud not been done. t Tho Fresh Food and Ice- Company invariably took particular care as to the handling of their milk, and, on the dav in question, it had been sent out for delivery in exactly tho same condition as that in which it had been received from their .suppliers. Sir. Myers then alluded to tho 'fact that, in. a previous case, tho Health Department had used a letter against the company which had been sent confidentially by the company's secretary. This letter had stated that the suppliers wcro not sending in "proper milk." Mr. Myers went on to say that'it had been, openly stated to the defendant company's secretary that the Department were not troubling much nbout the farmers, liut were anxious to watch tho city vendors. In tho course of further argument for the defence Mr. Myers contended that the lnilk was not (at the time at which the inspector's purchase was effected) the property of the Fresh Food and Ico Company. It really belonged to the Wellington Dairy Company ns it had changed hands when it left the Fresh Food and Ice Company's premises; also the milk was not really being retailed, but was part of a wholesale consignment of somp 255 gallons. The Act ■'; states that a . sample must bo obtained of what is "being sold," and in. this case 255 gallons wcro being sold and these were contained in a certain number of cans supplied by the vendees (Wellington Dairy Company), so that if a sample were to be obtained, then it should hiave been taken from all the cans and not from ono of them. '

Sub-Inspector Sheehnn.jaid that it was not true that the Health Department had ignored communications received from the defendant company regarding the'-' milk supplied by the formers. Samples of the farmers' milk had also been tnken. ' His Worship reserved decision. THE DOG AND THE TROUBLE. On the information-of Arthur".{jutcliffe Kairby, William -Aubrey was charged with having assaulted him' while he was driving his bcrrlv-The 'defence set up was that the plaintiff was in possession of the defendant's dog—a sporting dog which defendant valued at £20. Plaintiff admitted that since Christmas he had frequently' borrowed the- dog, which he was in .the habit of going e&ootiiiij with, and that it was often at his home, but had never been fed there, 'though it had sometimes been, washed. Tho defendant stated 'that ho had asked the plaintiff for, the dog, but the plaintiff had merely called him "ginger whiskers" and had then driven off. Defendant thereupon jumped into tho cart and cuffed the ■boy over the ears. """,' His Worship, in entering judgment in favour of the plaintiff, with solicitor's costs (£1 Is.),,remarked that although it appeared that'plaintiff had no right in keeping the''dog, , the remedy for the defendant was "not ; assault. .' Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbons. appeared on be.half of the plaintiff, and Mr. V. E. Meredith for the. defendant.' ■ ■ '".. HOUSE BADLY TREATED. Norman Ellis was charged by Frederick Seed .(Inspector for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) with neglecting to take proper enre of a horse which had been turned out on the* Wadestown hills. ' Evidence was adduced that the horse was in no 'condition to be turned uncovered in a paddock. , where the water was eearce and not good; Ellis was fined 405., and ordered to pay £i 2s. costs and expenses. Mr. Webb appeared for plaintiff.

: . \ MINOR - CASES. Alexander Thomson, was convicted and fined' 20s. for stealing a pair of boots, valued at 12s. Cd., from Daniel Corona. Frank Jarvis: was ordered to pay 10s. costs for riding a. motor cycle on June 21 which was not fitted with a bell or horn. Thomas Louis Gardener was fined £9, with 9s. costs, or in' default 'one,month's imprisonment, for being on licensee}. premises whilo prohibited. For a similar offence, Kate Donovan was fined 205., with 9s. costs. . ~ ' John Ernest Bull, charged with insobriety, was ordered to pay 2fls., in default throe days' imprisonment. Five first offenders were dealt with. One was filled 55., ami tlie others bad their Bail estreated. " . > .

COURT, OF APPEAL.

NGAWAKAKUPE BLOCK CASE. ' Lengthy argument-.was concluded in the Court of Appeal yesterday in the case relating to a lease of -Native land (the Ngawakakupc Block), in the Wairarapa district. T.he bench was occupied by Mr. Justice'.William's, Mr. Justice. Denniston, Mr. Justice- Edwards, and Mr. Jus'tico Chapman. ■•.'■• : Tho appellants were William Harris and Thomas Harris, sheep farmers, of Martinbonmsh, and the respondent was Martha M'Grogor ' (formerly Martha Maliupuku), wife of G. S. M'Gregor, sheep farmer, of Grevtowu. i • Mr. H. D."Bell, K.C., with him Mr. C. B. Morison, appeared for the appellants, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. P. E. Ward, appeared for the respondent. "' ' ' The appeal was from' a decision of the Supreme Court, declaring that a lease and the confirmation . thereof v:ero null and void. Particulars of the case were .published on Friday. Argument concluded just before 3.30 p.m. yesterday, when the Court reserved decision, aud. adjourned until 10.30 a,ns. to-morrow.