RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3431, 19 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, February 19. (Before T. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness, —Daniel Harris, for this offence, was fined ss, with the option of 24 hours’ imprisonment. Selling Unstamped Bread.—John Walls was charged with selling, on the 5 th instant, i)2lbs bread not properly marked. M r Branson for Informant,.Mr Stout for defendant.— Mr Branson explained that the information was laid under tho Bakers’ aud Millers’ Act which provided that the bread should be properly marked. After r,easing the seventh section of the Act, he said that all household bread, in accordance with this clause, should be marked with a gigantic Roman H, but why he did not know. Not being a master miller, or fully acquainted with their habits, he could not say why these marks w re im* pera ive.—George Dumb, Revenue 1 ffioerand prosecutor in the case, was present when defendant delivered to a Mrs Elaon, a storekeeper’s wife, some bread not marked in any form.—Mary Anne Elson stated that her husband* kept a store. They took bread from defendant daily. She noticed no letter or mark on the bread. She could not say that she ever received bread from him without it being stamped.- William Brown, a miller of ten years’ experience, served defendant with flour.—Mr Branson : Is the flour you supply defendant with, wheaten flour, without any admixture of bran or hull in it ?—Mr Stout objected to the question as being irrelevant, aud it was not pressed.—Mr Branson : As an expert of considerable experience, can you say if the flour as made here and supplied to the bakers is pure wheaten flour, without any admixture of bran or hpll in it?— Wit. ness : There is a little bran in all bread*

This is perceptible to the naked eye. lam of opinion that alt bread made with flour must necessarily have bran or hull in it. By Mr Stout: All bread has hull in it, and it is impossible to eliminate it by machinery. By Mr Branson : No flour can b© mad« in the Colony without hull or bran in it. This was the case.—Mr "tout submitted that there was really no case made out. It was proved that Walls had delivered to Mrs Elsou certain bread, but the weight Was not proved,—Mr Branson maintained that such was not necessary. There was a* second charge of that nature. —His Worship pointed out that by the 9th section if there was no weight proved no fine could he inflicted.— Mr Stout pointed out that the weight of the bread supplied to Mrs hilson was not told, the miller swore that he never saw in his life bread without any bran in it. That was never contemplated by the Act. It was not proved what kin of bread it was. it might have been French or fancy bread, and under the 10th section it must bo proved that it was neither of these kinds, as it was not necessary to have them stamped. —Mr Branson would take a nonsuit.—His Worship he'd that indepeident of the last point, prosecutor had not made out his case. A reasonable construction must be put on the Act. The seventh section meant that some portion of the bran must purposely b© retained. The case was dismissed. Breach of the Licensing Ordinance.— James Bussell, storekeeper, was charged on the information of Revenue officer Lurab with having sold, on the 13th inst., one bottle of ale not corked and capsulled in accordance with the Act. Mr Branson for prosecutor ; Mr Harris for defendant George Lurab held a “diploma” from the Superintendent, which entitled him to search bottle-licensed premises. Defendant was a storekeeper. While walking along the street a short distance from defendant’s premises' on the day named in the information, he saw a little girl coming along with a bottle, and witness tad, “ What have you got, my dear.” She produced a bottle. From what the girl said, he took her into defendant’s store, and Mr* Macpberaon filled a bottle from a cask and produced it. Witness saidhe had one which she sold to the girl for 4d, and did not want another. Mrs Russell having said that it was properly capsuled, witness drew the capsule off and pointed out that the bottle was broken. Mrs Russell then said that her daughter had tilled and capsulled the bottle. The bottle was then produced, and the capsule lifted, witness saying that it was in the same state as when he received it. Edith Macpherson said she was ten years of age. On Friday last her mother sent her with the bottle produced to get beer. She paid for it when it was returned to her with the beer. —By Mr Harris : The cork was not loose when she tot the bottle. Another bottle was produced, witness saying that when she handed the bottle to Mr Lutnb, it was corked down like the other bott e.—Elizabeth Russell, defendant’s daughter, served in their father s shop. The last witness brought a bottle to get some beer. 11 hid a cork in it. Witness got the beer for her from a cask. (Capsule produced, witness putting it on the bottle, and saying that she put it on the bottle she gave the girl in a similar manner.) Her father put the cork in the other bottle in her presence.—James M’Lareu, who was called for the de fence, said that he had not used any other cupsule than the one produced since the Licensing Act had come into force.—Two other storekeepers gave similar evidence.— His Worship said the fact of all the bottlelicense holders in Dunedin having used the capsule similar to the ouo produced did not lessen the offence He recollected the time when the capsule was invented, and it wasintended to be used in the place of the wire capsule then used, the intention of the Ordinance was that beer should not be kept on draft. As this was the first case of the kind, he would only inflict the small penaltv of 20s and costs.