MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 281, 23 August 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

WATER IN MILK

FINE OF £10 IMPOSED

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, a fine of ,£lO was imposed by Mr. E. Page, S.M., on Mrs. Maud Dunn, on a dliarge of having sold milk adulterated with water. * •

Mr. J. Tudhope, of the Crown Law Office, prosecuted, and Mr. H, F. O'Leary defended.

Mr. Tudhope said that generally in such casus there was a doubt as to how the water got into the milk, but in this ease lie suggested that there was no such doubt. On May 28, when Inspector Rawlinson visited defendant's shop for the purpose of obtaining a sample, the defendant appeared somewhat anxious that he should not take the sample from the can. on t'ue counter as it. was. The inspector told Mrs. Dunn not to fi£l the ean up from the contents of another can, but she did so. Even tlien't'ho sample taken, when tested, was found to contain 7 per cent, of added water. Counsel submitted that had not the can been filled up, the percentage of water would have been found to 'be greater, A few days later the inspector again visited defendant's shop and took an official sample from a five-pint billy, and one unofficial sample from a gallon can. Both conticiuera were at the time on the counter. Both samples disclosed the fact that the luiCk contained 19 per cent, of added water. For the reason that the check sample .was not taken officially no information was lai(| in respect to that suiuple. The defendant had informedJthe inapeci.oi that die' milk contained in tihe five-pint billy was on order. In a letter to the Health Department, the defendant exnlainrd that she had purchased a pillion of milk from a passing cart in order to fulfil a special order, but the person who ordered the milk did not cr.ol for it. Consequently it remained untouched. Shortly before the inspector' *isited the shop, Mr. Dunn wo ed "ut one of the cans in which he had received the morning's inilk. After swilling the can out he poured the water into the billy in which the gallon specially ordered was standing. This. billy would not hold a.'.l the water, and the remainder of the water was poured into another ■ vessel. It was intended to throw out the contents of both biluies. There was a third can on the counter, and this contained the milk, for sale.

Inspector Kawlinson gnvo evidence as to taking tbe samples, and outlined what happened when he entered the shop and told Mrs. Dunn not to fill up tho can from which he received the sample.

To Mr. O'Leary: The can fiom which he took tho original sample (and tho one which Mrs. Dunn filled up) waß about three-quarters full before Mrs. Dunn filled ih It was not <a fact that'the can was almost empty. For the defence, Mr. O'Leary said that his client maintained that in the case of the. sample, of milk taken on May 23, sh? .sold, the milk as she received, it. As to the charge in connection with tho samples taken on May 31, counsel said thkt on May 30 Mrs. Dunn received an order from a Mr. Ball for a gallon of milk for May 31. He paid for the milk, but did not call for it, and unfortunately was not now in New Zealand. This milk was state on May 31. and Mr. Dunn, in swilling out some of the cans, poured tho water into the can containing tho gailoii of stale, unclaimed milk This accounted for the high percentage of water in the milk. When Inspector Rawlinson called, Mrs. Dunn asked him to take the sample from the pail containing the fresh milk, but ho took it from tbe two containers which contained the water and mii'lc.

The defendant and Mr. Dunn gave evidence on these lines.

His Worship said that the circumstances relating to the charge, of May 31 .were btfli. unusnal and peculiar. It did appear that the defendant endeavoured to explain to,the inspector the reason why hr> should not take a sample of tho milk uliich it was intended to throw out. Tho explanation accounting for the presence of the can containing the watered milk was "satisfactory, and Hie information in this case would bo dismissed.. On the first chartre f.Ke defendant pleaded guilty, aiid would be fined JllO and costs. A mouth iv'as allowed in which to pay tho fine. ALLEGED TRESPASS. Wlion the case Percy .b. Slainton v. William Herbert lirewor was called, counsel for the intciniant, Mr. Barker, asked for u remand for a week, as his c.lient was out oi town, but Mr. T. C. A. Hiaop, who represented Brewer, made strong objection l to an adjournment. Counsel said that a previous adjournment had been agreed to, but Brewer was desirous of obtaining possession of his furniture and papers, which were in an office in the .King s Chambers. He wanted the case to proceed, as his client desired his papers. When Brewer went to the oifice Stuintoii ordered him off, and called in the police. If un adjournment were granted counsel asked His Worship to mako a direction that Brewer could obtain his papers and furniture in the meantime. In reply to His Worship, Mr. Barker said that there was some dispute as to whether the furniture was owned by Brewer. His Worship granted the remand, and directed 'that the 'informant pay defendant counsel' 6 fees for the adjournment'!. NO PERMIT FOR FIREARMS. Another prosecution arising out of the case in which Wiifiam Henry Darby charged with assault in Juue last was heard yesterday, in the original case Uarby had a uisput« with another man in a boiirdingnouse respecting sonio money and at' the time he produced a revolver. He was arrested, aud on being charged said that he was going to use the revolver for pig shooting. Some time later Les'lie Tisdall, h'unsmith, was convicted for Belling firearms to Darby, who did not produce the necessary permit. The action yesterday was a charge against Darby of having purchased a revolver from Tisdull without a permit to do so. Mr. C. B. O'Donnell, who appeared for the defendant, admitted tho facts of the case, and asked that his client bo dealt with leniently, and His Worship imposed a fine of 10s. 9 . A MATTER OF CHARITY. "As a matter of charity this man was arrested," said Acting-Sub-Inspector Khicrsoo, when Wil.iam Courick was charged with vagrancy in that lie had insufficient lawful means of support. As a matter of fact, continued Mr. Emerson, tho accused has means—a brother in Australia sends him an allowance of 2os. per week, but he spends this in drink and sleeps anywhere. He had no homo, and was covered with vermin. He was an old man, 64 years of age, and it would be an act of charity to tako him off tho sh'eots. In any case. Mr. Emerson suggested a remand for a week ■in order that the .accused might be cleaned. His Worship agreed. MILITARY DEFAULTERS. The following defaulters under the Military Service Act were dealt with:— R T. Page, fined £-1; W. J. G. Brown, lined JES; lan Grant, fined .63; Clarcnco Moore, fined £S; A. E. V. Mason, fined £2; and L. J. Nicholson, fined 10s.

OTHER PROSECUTIONS. On a charge of working on the waterfront without a pormit to do so, an alien named Hasfaolo Alfans was fined .81, and costs 7s Tim Fong, a Chinese, tang a registeicd alien, admitted through his counsel, Mr. R M. Beechey, that he had changed his fflaco of abode without notifying the authorities. Defendant lived at Tnuranga, and moved to Wellington. lie <lid not realiso that he had to notify his change of address. His Worship iiupoqxl a fino of -CI and costs. Henry Coring was convicted for driving his dray over the Davis Street lovel crossing without _ talcing notice of the crossing-keeper's signal to stop. A train was approaching at the time,, and the crossing-keeper signalled to Doring to slop, hut defendant failed to do so. and crossed the railway lines when the train was within ftft yards. lie was fined .CI, and co«ts ID.-. . , For being on licensed premises after hours, A. Butler was fined XI.

For a breach of his prohibition order, Oliarfes William Harvey was fined J3, and was convicted and discharged for dniultenness. Jiicliard Wilkes was Sncd 10?, tot drunkenness