MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2407, 12 March 1915, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

SALE OF MILK

VENDOR FINED $20

A long-standing case, against a milk vendor, William Incledon, by the Health Department for selling adulterated milk was brought to a conclusion before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. The case first came before the Court in April of last year, and followed the conviction of. two small vendors for selling adulterated milk. The prosecution was taken as tho result of evidence given in the two last-named cases. Mr. M. Myers defended Incledon, and raised certain points, contending that Section 7 of the Act had not'been complied with by tho Department's inspector in that a portion of the sample originally seized from the small'milk vendors-(supplied by'lncledon) had not been given to Incledon.

For the prosecution Mr. P. S. Macassey replied that Section 7 only applied to the sale of milk for analysis;, and not to sale for human consumption. Mr. D. G. A. Cpoper, S.M., who heard the case, agreed with the defence, and dismissed the information. The Health Department appealed, and the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), before whom the appeal came, upheld it and consequently, the case reverted to the Magistrate again. Yesterday Mr. Myers held that in view of the facts that the case was such a novel one, that his client had already been put to a large amount of expense, and finally that recent samples taken by the mill? inspector were up to standard, hits client should\be leniently dealt with. Mr. Myers further said that defendant had not added water to his milk and neither had any been added to defendant's knowledge. All that had been done was to add a drop of annatto. Tho latter had been done solely to improve the appearance of the milk. The defendant, in his evidence, said that water had not been added to milk to his knowledge, while the annatto had been added on account of the difference; in quality from the different cows, and, it gave the milk a general good appearance. Replying to-Mr. Myers; Mr. Macassey said that the case must be dealt. with on its merits, and not treated leniently because of the novelty of the case. Coun.s.el went on to say that there had .been sales 'by defendant to three different .small vendors for a period extending lover, a month. In each case water had been added to, an extent averaging from 20 per cent, to 29 per cent. Annatto had in each case also been added.

The Magistrate said he would take into consideration the fact that recent samples taken from defendant's- cans bad. been tip to Standard. It showed that he would be more careful to comply 'with the provisions of the Act in future. A fine of £20 was imposed. UNUSUAL AWARD CASES. '• A most unusual award case came before Mr. W. G.. Riddell, S.M., the Inspector of Awards proceeding against Matt Gleeson, licensee of the Royal Tiger Hotel, for an alleged. breach of the'hotel workers' award, in that he employed,, a housemaid for 2s. 6d. per day instead of at 255. per week. The evidence showed that the alleged employee complained of was an old woman of 69 years, who was. employed for a few hours daily, cleaning the floors, etc., and that' she was paid. 2s. 6d. daily for the same. For the defence Mr. W. Perry contended'that the employee was only a charwoman, who was employed out of charity on odd " days throughout the week'. "The claim is a preposterous one," said counsel. Tho Magistrate interposed that he did not even know what the award was. "in cases such'as these," said the Magistrate, addressing the Inspector of Awards, "the-award must be produced and proved, and defendant proved a party to it. This has not been done. Plaintiff must be nonsuited."

j Another unusual award case was that in which Ernest .Burn, an employee of W. H. Boyd, grocer, of Kilbirnie, was charged with employing a boy under the age of 16 years as-assistant driver, thereby committing a breach of the grocers' award. A fine of £1 was imposed, it being pointed out that an employee employing, labour places himself in the same-position as.his original employer. The . Inspector of Awards also proceeded against Walter- M'Hugh, a, ■ barman, for a breach of the hotel employees' award in that he accepted less than the minimum wage prescribed by the,award. A fine of .10s. was imposed. In respect to the charge, A. R. Durrant, his employer, was fined £2, in that he employed M'Hugh and paid him thaii -the award rate; POLICE CASES. Mr.'D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., heard the police cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. . • Four firemen off the Ruahine, John Wilson, William Garrett, Edward Carston, and John Watson, appeared on remand from yesterday.charged with absenting themselves' without leave from that vessel. Inspector Hendrey explained that tho vessel was to have sailed that day, but as. .the departure had been postponed until the following morning the master of the vessel wished the men to be held in custody until then. Each -of the firemen was accordingly ordered to pay 7s. Court costs, and to be placed on board the Ruahine on its departure. : ' For drunkenness, Ernest Walter Ormerod was fined ■ 405., in default seven daYs' gaol, and James Kerr fined 10s., or'4B hours' gaol. Two first offenders, were convicted and discharged.

DEFAULT DEBTORS' LIST. Judgment. was given for plaintiff by default by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the following undefended civil'cases: Norah Jane Ryan v. Christopher George Marshall, £18 3s. 6d., costs £115s. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., r. John Nolan, £16 7s. 7d., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Veitch and Allan v. W. J Hamilton, £3 os. 5d., costs 10s.; Colonial Carrying Company of New Zealand, Ltd., v. J. Meatchem, '-7s. 9d., costs 55.; Money Goper r. Doris Ede, £7, costs £1 3s. 6d.; His Majosty the King 'v. Ernest Stanley Garrett, £5 6s. 4(1., costs £1 3s. 6d. • same v. Arthur Lines, £11 4s. 6tL, costs £1 10s. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Lena Lennox, £57 19s. 2d., costs'£3 18s. 6d.; Bamiatyne and Hunter, Ltd., v. A. S. Jiidd, £2 4s. 2d., costs 10s.; Wellington Publishing Co., Ltd., v. R. E. Howell, £5 3s. 6d., costs Bs.; . Clement Mason Cinematograph Co. v. E. and H. Morgan, £147 14s. od., costs £4 18s. 6d.; B. A. Whittaker v. P. M'Grath, £2 os., costs 10s;; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. H. Jennings, £2 25., costs '£1; same v. W. H.. Humphries, £1 135., costs ss. ; same v. Patterson and Locltington, Bd., costs 1125.; same v. E. Ham, £3 75., costs 10s.; Ceylon Tea Company, Ltd., v. Mrs. Alice M. Woolcott, £1 19s. 7d., costs 55.; Jas. Spicer and Sons (N.Z.), Ltd., v. W. A. Wilkinson, £11. 175., costs £1 10s.. Pd.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Eric Walker, £13 165., costs £1 10s. 6d.; same v. W. B. Watson, £1 9s. 5d., costs 135.; same v. Hodson and I'atchett, £6 Bs. 7d., costs £1 3s. 6d.