SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2341, 24 December 1914, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

IMPORTANT DECISION SALE OF FOOD & DRUGS ACT Reserved decision was delivered by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon on an important point of law in connection with the interpretation of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908, as relating to the sale of milk. 'The judgment reversed a decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr. D. G. A. Cooper), and has the effect of oxtehding' the powers of the health inspectors. Tho case was originally heard in the Lower Court in August last,-' when William Incledon was charged (on the information of the Health Inspector) with having sold milk containing water and annato contrary to the regulations tinder tho Act. Mr. M. Myers, who appeared for the defendant, then contended that there could bo no' conviction in a prosecution for the sale of adulterated milk unless ;the provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Sale, of Food, and Drugs '.i't were complied with and the sample of the milk taken was divided into three parts and one. handed to the vendor. Mi. P. S. K. Macassey, for the Health Department, submitted that tho sections only ■ applied when the milk was taken for the purposes of analysis, and not when the milk was purchased for human consumption. The Magistrate upheld the contention of Mr. Myers, and dismissed the information.

From this decision the Crown appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law, and when tho appeal came before the Chief Justice last week, Mr. Myers raised the further point that tho information should have been laid by the purchaser of the milk, and not bythe Health Inspector. In reply to this, Mr. Macassey contended that a common informer could lay the information, and that, a fortiori, the officer whose duty it was to see that the provisions of the Act were observed, could lay tho information.

In the course of his judgment, His Honour expressed the opinion that £.ny common informer might prosecute, and that, in cases whero an officer or person was not proceeding under tho special provisions .of Sections 4, 5, 7, and 8, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of those sections. It would impair the influence of the Act, and make it of little value if no one could be prosecuted. unless a sample was taken, and the proceeding under-Section 7 followed. In cases like the present, if the contention of the respondent (Incledon) were correct, adulterated food might be sold wholesale, and a conviction of the seller be impossible, however, guilty he might bo. Tho appeal would therefore be allowed, and the case remitted to the Magistrate with the Court's decision. As the case was a novel one, no costs would bo allowed. AN APPEAL DISMISSED. Yesterday afternoon, His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) dismissed the appeal from a decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., delivored on October .20 last in the case in.which William Kingston Counell and John Conuell (in their own right and as assignees Margaret M'lntosh) proceeded against John Brodie for recovery of a deposit of £100 on a lease of the Royal-Tiger Hotel, together with £5 interest upon the same.Tho Magistrate had given judgment for plaintiffs for £100, with Court costs £2 and solicitor's fee £6, and this decision was appealed from. At, the hearing, Mr. D. M.Findlay appeared for the appellant, while, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop appeared for the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with 6ix guineas costs.