VEAL IN PORK BUTCHER'S SHOP

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 215, 9 June 1920, Page 3

VEAL IN PORK BUTCHER'S SHOP

ALLEGED BREACH OP SLAUGHTERING • ;■ .. ACT. Mr. VT. G. Riddell, 8.M., had' befon him in the Maeißtrate's Court ycsterdaj afternoon the case of Thomas bivinouriu Herrell, of Kiddiford Street, who' -wai charged by the city authorities with ex posing for sale meat slaughtered at othei than a registered abattoir. Mr.. J O'tihea appeared for the City. Corporation and Mr. ii. P. O'Leary for the defendant Mr. O'Shea said that there were twt charges of exposing meat for sale thai had been slaughtered at other than , a registered abattoir. The information was laid under section 17 of the Slaughtering ana Inspection Act. - Thomas Charles Webb,- inspector ol itock, said that in consequence of report! received he visited the shop of Merrell and asked the manager if he had two culvei there.' Me replied that he had, and produced them. They had not the abattoir brand,' and the manager said one came from Hiramar and the other irom Karori Bouth., The 1 calves weighed 321b. each, They',were; hanging up at the back of the shop, and the butcher in answer to a question said he intended making the meat lip into small - goods. . s To Mr. O'Leary: Merrel was a porli butcher and ho did not. think • he solil veal. -They could only be used for small goods; The carcasses were whole and in a chiller when witness saw them. The butcher was quite frank as to where the calves came from. Witness, could not eay that they were to be seen from the shop; the carcasses were not in a condition for retailing when witness saw them. Mr. O'Leary said that the defence was that the carcasses were not exposed for sale. . The inspector was frankly told where the calves came from and that they had not been slaughtered at a registered abattoir. Thomas S. Merrell, pork butcher, said that the calves were purchased by his partner. Witness himself telephoned for the inspector to come up and examine 6ome pigs. There were ttve pigs hanging up in a bac> room, and the calves were behind the pigs and could not have been seen from the shop. The carcasses were there when the inspector came. They did not Eell voaJ, and the carcasses would have been turned into small goods, He thought the one carcass was a week old and the other a day old. > Arthur Jantke, a partner of the previous ■witnoss, said he bought the calves. He corroborated the evidence of Merrell. Customers coming into the shop would have to make a special effort to look into the back shop, and (ken. they could only have seen one pip;l They could not possibly see the calves. William Wylie, grocer, said his shop ivas near Merrell's. Tho butchery was very clean and well kept, and the goods they sold were wholesome. Mr. O'Leary, in addressing tho Magistrate, said that the charge waß* that the icfendant exposed the carcasses for salo, ITie carcnsßea were in a back room, not In the retailins portion of the shop, and (fere hanging Dchind a number of pigs ;hat were there for inspection and not for sale. The carcasses when seen by ihe inspector wore not in a form in which.they were Med for food. The defendant did not sell veal, and the carcasses were not for sale in that form. I'hoy would have been made into small goods such as brawn, ham and veal, etc. lie submitted that no evidence had been given to eF.tablish tho fact that the carcasses were .exposed ior sale. The Magistrate reserved his decision.