UNWHOLESOME FISH

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 228, 14 June 1918, Page 8

UNWHOLESOME FISH

POLICE TAKE ACTION

NEWTOWN WOMAN FINED £2

In a prosecution, brought under (no Police Offences Act, the police were successful yesterday in securing a conviction at the Magistrate's Court against Beatrice Nicol, of the Central fish Shop, Kiddiford Street, jYewtown, for huving sold uuwboleiiome (ish.-The-alleged olI'once took place on May 24, the sale being made to a boy named James Thomas, llr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M., heard the case. Inspector Marsiick appearing for Ilio police, Bad llr. V. B. Willis for defendant.

Inspector Mareack said the charge wae laid under Section 3 of. the Police Offences Act. Oα the day of the information a boy was sent by his mother to buy fish. Ho went to defendant's ehop. bought some fish, and took it. home. His mother found it was in an unwholesome condition, and sent it bnck to have it exchanged. Upon this request being re-fused-the matter was reported to the police. Mrs. Nicol snid she was hound (o sell the fish supplied her, or else return tho money. Airs. 11. Thomas, mother of the boy who bought the fish, said sho did not instruct tho Ind to go to any particular shop. When the boy returned with the lislt she found that it was bad. She sent the boy back to get it exchanged, but lie returned with the samo piece, liefore sending the fieh to the police station, she told the boy that he wns either to have the money returned or else have the fish exchanged. To irr. Willis: .After the fish was removod from the house it left a reek behind it for two days. Constable F. Hedgeinan said the fish was not wholesome and smell very strong. He would not have eaten it himself. When witness went to the shop after receiving the complaint, defendant said the fish was not fresh, but frozen' fish, and was good enough to eat. Witness remarked to defendant that ho would not care to consume such fish himself. Defendant replied that, the fishwas sent to her to be eold and she had to sell what was dispatched to her. She would not return the money to the ljoy. Mr. Willis: Do you know the character of this shop?-"Not too good, I must say. "We have had previous complaints about the bad • fish that, has been sold there. Defendant has been approached on the point." Perhaps you will tell HU'Worship why your wife deals with, this shop?—" She (jets served well."

Did she not buv fish on ibis verr <lav? -"Yes."

Was it all right?-"Yes."" Well, your wife liae had good slnff from Mrs. 'Nicol ?—"Yes."

His Worship: Well, of course, joii would not exixjet. them to sell bad fish to a constable.

Witness added flint he had no grievance against defendant. When, the latler told him that tliea-e was 110 freeh fish in the city that <lay he-replied that that wne 6traJig9 bocuiHH Jiis wife, hnd bought 6om« lieh from defendant that day and it ,was vwy good. Defendant told him that if she returiipd the money for all the fish that was brought hack to her her firm would not keep her h've minutes. Sergeant Cruictslianlis characterised the smell of the fish as'beinj "mbeohitelv abominable."

Jtr. Willis: I-don't suppose you are a judge of drilled-' fish and fish brought fresh from the sen?—"\o, but I can tell when fish is good." For the defence Mr. Willis submitted there was no evidence of knowledge on the part of the defendant thai the fish was Dud. Had it been in the condition alleged no sano person ivould have contended it was wholesome after it had been brought under their/ notice five .or fiix times. The boy was told by defendant that she had no fresh fish, meaning fish taken from the water; all the fish she had was chilled. As a matter of fact, practically all the fish sold in Wellington that week was taken from the freew'r. There was a very great, difference'between chilled fish and h'eh taken fresh-from the- water. He would call the evidence of practical fish merchants to provo that. His Worship: T don't care what scientific men you produce, any housewife can tell the difference between good and bad fish.

Defendant stated that the boy brought a note asking for 61b. of fresh fish. She replied that she hod.no fresh, fish, only chilled, and she sold him some. The boy left and returned with an insulting note stating that if the money was not returned the police would be'informed. Through having been in the chiller the fish was dark in appearance, but was quite wholesome. She had supplied the Home for the Aged Needy with "Gib. of the snme fish, and she considered that she had served 100 customers that dn.v■■with chilled fish.. She received no complaints. She had previously received only one complaint regarding chilled fish. Hnd the fish in the preeent ense been bad, she would have retnrnod the money. Cold storage was not detrimental to fish.

Evidence was given by Herbert Thornton fishmonger, who supplied defendant with the fish in question, that it waa good. The Meat Export Company, he said, would not accept fish for freezing purposes unless it was fresh. ' Frozen fisli took eight V>r ten hours to thaw and at this time of the year it should keep for 30 or <10 hours after thawing. Similar evidence was given by' John J. Fenton, an employee of tho previous witness, and William Apps, formerly a fishmonger, of over 20 years' experience. Jiis Worship .held it was. not necessary to prove knowledge on the part of a defendant that food was unwholesome. The.liability was on tht defendtint to see that it was good. In his opinion the fish complained of in the present ense ivns unwholesome and waa not fit for human food. A conviction. must be entered. , Defendant was fined £2 and coels.