RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3615, 23 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, September 22. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.)

Selling Adulterated Milk —Hector M'Oauchm was charged, on the information of George Lumb, inspector, with selling one pint of which was not pure, cou'rary to the provisions cf the Act.—Defendant he sold the itiilk but did- not put anythiug in it. He had cowa*of his own, but bought milk when he ran short.—lnformant said that on August 24 he purchased a pint of milk from defendant, telling him at the same time that his reason was to test its soundness. He corked and capsuled it in defendant’s presence. He submitted it to toe analyst, Professor Black, and in consequence of the report received from him he brought defendant before the Court.—Professor Black, Provincial Andyist, said ho analysed a bottle of milk which lid received from Mr Lnrnb on August 24. The result of his examination was that he found seventyseven parts of pure milk to twenty-three of water, or nearly one-fourth of water put into the milk. Tnere were no other injurious properties in the milk.—idis Worship told defendant that he could sell milk and water as long as he let the public know that he was not selling pure milk,—lnformant said that as milk was selling at 5d per quart and butter at !4d per lb, the public should expeot to get their milk in a sound state, and added that, as this was the fir-t case of the kind, he trusted that his Worship would mike such an example of defendant that it would prove a beneficial deterrent to the other milkmen in the town. Although he got a great deal of adulterated milk°from different persons, this was the mogt flagrant instance.—His Worship said that, as°this was the first case of its kind, and he always dealt leniently with first offences, the case would be dismissed on payment of costs Inspector Lumb deserved thanks for seeing that the public were not served with adub ttra‘ed articles, and had done properly in bringing the matter before the Court. Selling adulterated Bread. —John Collie was charged, on the information tf George Lumb, Revenue Officer, with selling a French loaf not pure, aud by such sale rendering it deleterious to health, contrary to the provisions of the Adulteration Act, 1866. Mr Barton defended.—lnformant said that he went into defendant’s store on the 15th instant and purchased a loaf of bread. He stated the object for which he purchased, asking defendant to wrap it up m a piece of paper, apd to label it to prevent its being tampered with. ‘ Witness then took it to the laboratory, giving it into Professor Black’s hands. Professor Black said* that he received a loaf ot bread from Mr Lumb, and having examined it, found a considerable quantity of alumina and also sulphuric acid in it; therefore he concluded that alum must have been added to the material of which the bread was made. He afterwards examined salt similar tp that from which the bread was made, and found that jt contained alumina in large quantities. Had he examined the salt before making his report' on the bread, he should hs,ve qsed the word “ appreciable V jn place of “ considerable,” and sp have' modified the report. He could not spy, under all the circumstances, that there had beep wilful adulteration. —Mr Barton urged that the case must be dismissed, seeing that Dr Black had admitted that the fault lay, to a great extent, with the salt, and net with the bakers, 'fhe water was also not free from sulphuric acid.—The case was dismissed.— Mr Barton thed addressed the Court at length in vindication pf the bakers. Selling- Unstamped Bread.— John Barr, was charged with selling two loaves of wheaten bread not being marked with a large Roman “H.”—Mr Barton defended, and said he would not contest the fact that the loaf was not marked. Defendant was not aware that he was bound to put the la -ge Roman “H” on his bread, or he would have done co. He would take good care that it was done in tijtjiro, —A fine of 10s and costs was inflicted.

Wednesday, September 23. (Before T, A, Afausford, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness, —Thomas Hill, ap old offender, charged with this offence, was fined lbs, with the alternative of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Fraud. Charles Brodie Cooper was charged, on the information of Samuel Jacobs with having, on August 29, by means of false pretences, obtained from him the sum of L 3, with intent to defraud him. Accused, ip pleading not guilty, asked that a remand till next day might be granted, in order to give him an opportunity of consulting a professional man. Ho was only arrested op. the previous evening.—The remind as applied for was granted, accused being admitted to bail o,n fajci own recognisance of Esu and two sureties of L 23 each. CIVIL CASES. Robert Miller v, Sydney Hodge.—Claim L 4 13s (id for house rent, at the rate of 6s per week. Plaintiff also sought to recover possession of his hoij.se, which was at present occupied by defendant, Mr Johuston appeared tor plaintiff.—Defendant admitted that ho owed plaintiff the amount sued for. He said that he had not had time to get another house, and that plaintiff had not served him with notice to quit.—liis Worship held that there'not sufficient proof of termination of tenancy, therefore he could not make an order compelling defendant to leave the premises. Judgment was given for the amount of rent due, L 4 ISs 6d. Defendant should be served with notice to quit. Loopap v. Bain.—Claim L2O, for trespass and for damage done to hay and chaff in plaintiff’s stable by defendant’s bull. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff j Mr Bathgate for defendant.—For the defence the ownership of the bull was denied, but plaintiff positively swore jthat ho had assisted in the branding of the bull, about three years ago, which was done by defendant, and the animal still bore bis brand, v.z., “D.B. No. 2.” Other witnesses gave evidence as to the biaud being oa the bull in question. tlis Warship considered that there was a large sraoput of conflicting testimony jn tfle case, but that the balance was in favor of the ■ plaintiff. He might safely say the bull belonged to defendant ; therefore the claim simply resolved itself into a question of damages, which he assessed at L 7, for which judgmeut was given, with costs. Matthews v. Ivcson. —Claim L 4 10s 6d, for fruit trees.—Plaintiff, a seedsman, had received flip order from one Daniel Monro

to forward him a couple trees to WestTaier. had them left at the Hull and Month H' tel for defendant, a eoach proprietor, to sent by his coach. They were not taken tc. Mr Monro, and, in consequence of tbrir non-delivery, plaintiff had had to deliver a similar quantity of trees over —For the defence it was contended that when goods were received at the Dunedin booking-office fur the Taieri, they were always left at the terminus there. Could it ho expected that a caaeh-propretor would take a parcel, for the delivery of which he would get perhaps a shilling or eightetnpence, all over the Taieri, which was a large district ? There two Mr Monro’s living in the West Taieri--one named Donald, and the other John. The trees, which were intended for John Monro, but were simply addressed “Mr Monro,” were delivered to Donald Monro, by whom they were planted —As Mr Harris was about to proceed to call witnesses, his Worship said he did not consider that there was a case for defendant to answer, if the facts 'as stated by Mr Harris were true. Plaintiff had the opportunity of taking a nonsuit if ho wished. - Plaintiff said he would take a nonsuit. —Mr Harris said he would sooner have had his witnesses examined, as he would bars been able to prove all that he had said.— Plainted was nonsuited, with cost i.