Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PROSECUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

The following is from the “ Otago Daily Times” of Monday:—The bacon which was seized by the Corporation health inspectors one day last week formed tho matter of a prosecution, under the 81st section of the Public Health Act, at the Pclice Court on Saturday. James Whitelaw, auctioneer, was the defendant. From the evidence it appeared that the bacon was sent to Mr Whitelaw’s rooms in Rattray street by one James R. Scott, an agent in Stafford street. Mr Lowry, the inspector, happened to be passing whilst tho bacon was being unloaded from tho express, and noticing that it was bad he inquired when it was to be sold, and was told at two o’clock in the afternoon. The sale was stopped, and the bacon taken possession of. Mr Banks, the grocer, who had examined some of tho bacon, which was in the form of rolled pigs’ cheeks, said it was decidedly unfit for human food. The only witness for the defence was J. E. Scott, who had sent the bacon to the rooms, and he stated that he had no knowledge of its being bad, and that when he was told so by the Inspector he expressed every willingness to have it destroyed. The Inspector said Mr Whitelaw had given him every facility for dealing with tho matter. Mr Watt, in giving judgment, said that, although there was no evidence that the meat had been exposed for sale, still it had been found upon the premises of the defendant, and bad it not been for the accidental passing by of the Inspector, in all probability it would have been offered for sale in the ordinary way. The defendant had rendered himself liable to a total penalty of £250 were the Act strictlyinterpreted, as it provided for a fine of £2O for each piece of meat. As this was the first prosecution under the Act, he would take a lenient view of the case; still, the defendant must not get off scot free. He would order the seized meat to be destroyed, and would infiict a fine of 20s, with 7s costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GLOBE18791101.2.11

Bibliographic details

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1778, 1 November 1879, Page 2

Word Count
357

PROSECUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1778, 1 November 1879, Page 2

PROSECUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1778, 1 November 1879, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert