MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1371, 8 July 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTOHUROH Monday, July 8. [Before G-. L. Mdlish, Esq., R.M.j Drunkenness —G-eorge Crott, who had on a former occasion failed to attend when on bail, was fined 60s for being drunk on Saturday, and the same amount for his slip on the 4th July. One first offender was lined 5s ; another, who had been in the hospital since the 20th May, suffering from a spraned ankle, which had happened while he was drunk was, discharged ; another first offender was fined 10s. Neglecting Responsibility. —Edward Turten was ii.cd 10s for not being in attendance on his vehicle. Wandeeina Cattle.—George Drew-, James Kosher, and Annie Townson were fined os each. Lighting a Fire in Open Air.-Joseph Winder was chtuyed with non-compliance with the by-law relating to lighting fi.es. He pleaded the orders of his employer. He was lined 10s, and recommended to obtain the money from his employer. Keeosene.—Mossrs Edwards, Bennett, find

Co. were charged with exposing for sale, for use in the colony of New Zealand, petr. leum, as defined in the Dangerous Goods Act, 1869, without having the vessel in which such petroleum was contained labled in legible characters stating as follows, "Dangerous, no light to bo brought near," contrary to the Dangerous Goods Act ; also with having in their possession, for the purpose of sale, petroleum, as defined in the Dangerous Goods Act, 1869, contrary to the Dangerous Goods Act. There were several similar charges, in which the defendants were Messrs Wood, Shand, and Co., Messrs Morrow, Bassett, and Co., Mr C. W. Turner, and Mr Reece. The fact's were not disputed, but, as the charges had been brought merely as test ca-cs, no penalty was inflicted in any of them. MiCowlishaw appeared for Messrs Morrow, Basseft, and Co. and Mr C. W. Turner, end Mr Williams for Mr Roeee. The following is a brief resume of the discussion which took place: . Mr Cowlishaw said there were several points on the matter which were of importance for the guidance of the police and merchants. He could not see that there was any offence against the statute contained in the second portion of the information. He took it that the offence was supposed to come under section 6of the Act. Inspector Hickson said it was under section 16. Mr Cowlishaw could see no offence under that. The Bench could see no reason why dangerous goods could not be kept. Inspector Hickson admitted that the defendants, being licensed, were not affected by the section. The Bench considered that the section did not contemplate the exclusion of dangerous goods, provided they were in proper custody. Mr Cowlishaw pointed out that the Act clearly allowed their being kept. The Bench said it would be absurd to suppose otherwise, but they must be kept under certain conditions. Mr Cowlishaw would go to the other part of the information referring to "exposure for sale." In tin so cases the Inspector of Dangerous Goods had gone into defendants' back yards and found the petroleum in tin cases, and theso in wooden boxes. There was no exposure for sale. In fact he had <o have the cases opened in order to obtain samples. Section 15 contemplated that the labelling should take place only after bulk had been broken, and was meant to apply to retailers alone. The defendants were all wholesale merchants. The Bench said it was quite clear that retailers must label their petroleum. Mr Cowlishaw pointed out that whilst bulk was not broken there was not that danger which would exist afterwards. The Bench remarked that learned counsel was arguing upon the presumption that merchants only dealt in the wholesale way. Ho believed that it was generally known that merchants would sell retail—not perhaps a sirgle bottle, or less than a tin, but they would supply stations for instance with a tin case. Mr Cowlishaw believed they would never sell less than two tins—the quantity in one box. Inspector Hickson said he could produce evidence to show what the practice was, but had not deemed it necessary, as he had understood that there would be no defence made. The Bench thought tho Act, which was meant only to protect the public, should not be strained. Inspector Hickson said he had no wish to strain it. The charges had been brought simply for tests and for public information. For the latter purpose he thought it would be well to have the evidence of Inspector Walsh as to the flashing point of the kerosene which had been tested. Inspector Walsh deposed that the Act required the flashing point to he 110 degrees, but the samples be had tested gave the following respectively—lo 6, 103, 104, 106, and 102. Professor Bickerton had analysed some which had given, os tho mean of two tests, tho flushing point at 93 decrees. It required some care in testing, as if the first flashing point was not noted the second would be probably ten degrees higher. The Bench considered that sufficient had been shown to make it clear that something ought' to be done to prevcot explosions. Merchants would probably take care to have oil of a better brand. He hoped that from time to time the police would see that kerosene of a dangerous character was not being sold. Inspector Hickson asked if he was to understand his Worship to rule that the Act did not apply to wholesale dealers. The Bench said it would apply where the merchants sold only a case at a time, but not where they sold a " line " in the ordinary way. Still, he could not see why they should not have the oil labelled as dangerous. Inspector Hickson contended that merchants having the oil in their yards constituted an exposure for sale. Tho Bench asked what objection merchants had to labelling the cases. Mr Cowlishaw supposed it would render the oil unmarketable. The Bench referred to tho sale of a lino of 100 cases at auction. Mr Cowlishaw said that the oil would he then sold by sample. Inspector Hickson said the retailer bought the oil from the wholesale dealer, and ought to know whether or not it was dangerous. The Bench said the retailer would return it to the merchant as unsaleable if ho found it dangerous, so the merchant would suffer that inconvenience by not labelling. Mr Hickson asked if he was to infer that his Worship's opinion was that the wholesale dealers did not come under the Act. The Bench thought they did, bnt it was not advisable to strain the Act. Inspector Hickson asked if the liije was to bo drawn at a emglo case. The Bench did not draw a line at all. The Act said " if a man sells," but that principally affected tho retail trade. If the wholesale merchants kept the oil exposed to the sun in their yards people would be blown up some time or other. It was a vcy serious thing to know that oil with a flashing point at 93 degrees was exposed to the hoat of tho sun which frequently reached close upon that. Mr Williams said the oil must be stored in back premises. The Bench understood that it was exposed without any cover 'from the sun. Mr Williams said the place for storing kerosene must be approved of by the City Council. Tho Bench ruled that if a merchant sella petroleum he was clearly liable under the Act, unless tho oil was labelled dangerous; having the article for sale was not exposing it for sale. Unlicensed Spibit Selling.—William Rogers, the possessor of a wine and beer license, was charged with selling spirits without a license. Dr. Foster appeared for him, and applied for an adjournment, on the ground of the illness of one of the witnesses for the defence, who was proved to be too ill to attend. Inspector Hickson asked for the evidence to be taken as far as it could, and called Alfred Slade, who deposed to having paid half-a-crown for two glasses of brandy and some brandy in a bottle at Sydenham House. Constable Brooks stopped witness, took the bottle from him, and took him back fco the house, whore he pointed out the person who had served him. Witness could not say that defendant was present. Witness had lodged in tho "house some time. To Dr. Foster—l stopped there the night before, and got |my meals there that day. I got my breakfast that morning, and paid for it and my bed. I went into the parlour and got the brardy. I don't know who served me. I then went into tho bar and had another* glass of brandy and half-a-crown's worth in a lemonade bottle. I paid 3s there. No one else was in the bar. I was going to my brother's. He bad previously been stopping at the hotel. Mrs Fitzgerald told mo I should have known better, as she had no license. I did not know that she had not. Constable Brooks deposed to having stopped the last witness, and found the brandy on him. [Dr. Foster asked tho Bench to taste the liquor produced. It might bo so adulterated as not to be brandy. 'The Bench declined.] To Dr. Foster—l tasted the liquor, hut did not take enough for it to have any delefcri us effect upon mo. [Dr. Fester wi?3 proceeding to cross-examine as to what led to tho witness interfering, but was Btopped by the Bench.] Inspector Hickson admitted that in was in pursuance of a plan, of which, however, witness was not cognisant. The fact of defendant not holding a spirit license was proved. The case was at this stage adjourned to July 29fch for the appearance of Mrs Fitzgerald. In answer to Inspector Hickson, Dr. Foster said he did not contemplate re-examin-ing any of the witnesses, but could not bind himself not to do so.

Illegally Eescuino Cattle. — Agnes Walker and Elizabeth Bordan were oharged with illegally rescuing two head of cattle on

their way to the pound. Tho former appeared, but the Litter did not. The complainant admitting that he was not driving the cows to tho pound, the ciise was dismissed. INCOMPATA'BILITT. John Borland appeared on:;o more with his wife Ellen, and said that he had not take the pledge because she would not. Tho Bench considered the wife to blame for her obstinacy in refusing. She pleaded that it was unnecessary in her case, as she did not drink to excess. The Bench ordered defendant to pay £1 a week towards the support of his wife and four voungi sfc children.