A FINE RECOVERED.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 May 1924, Page 3

A FINE RECOVERED.

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. CIIRISTCIIUKI IT. May 2:i. A ease of c.insidcrahlc interest to people connected with tin- daily trade came before Mr 11. V. Widdowsoii, S.M.. in the .Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Richard 11. Risden (Mr Tracy), dairy M’Eaddeii's Road, I’iipaiiui. claimed from Charles Rountree (Mr Mallev). dairy farmer. M’Eailden’s Road. I’apauui, the sum of £l(i (Is (id.

In his claim plaintiff said that on March Ilh. lie was fined the sum of £1!) and costs for selling mill; not up to standard. The costs amounted to 1 1 s (id and £.*i As, making a total of £!(> (is (ill. ’1 he milk for which he had been fined was purchased from defendant. Tin- milk was obtained from de-

fendant at ."i.AO in tin- iiinrning and •old between eight ami nine o’clock. Ho r.a-. not present when the inspector Look the sample, lie never mixed dcfemlunt’.N milk with his own. To Mr Malloy: Were you dismissed by Mrs Jamieson for selling stale milk 'i

Plaintiff: I lust her iiislam. ’-m she gave me no reason. In further cross-examination plaintiff claimed that he could toil the (I utility of milk hy looking at it. Plaintill" created some amusement hy gesticulating with his hands when answering (|ilostions. Mr Mallev: You are still getting Rountree's mill;—why - Plaintiff: lie said lie would iinrrcve :t. St line a.- my mtlk get - na.-f tlt" customers I don't worry. .Mr .Mallev: Did Mrs Palmer complain about your milk:I'laintilV: Nov. that's ceiling a bit hot. (La uglier 1. W hen further cross-examined, plaintiff went into long detailed statements, hill the .Magistrate intervened by saying that the main point lie had to decide was the identity of the milk. U.rne-t John Dodge, no employee of plainUM'. said he was on the earl when the inspector tool; the sample. lie pointed out to idaiiitiif the can 1 rom which the sample was taken, and plnintiif sr.’d it was Rountree's milk. Hionly knew it was Rountree's mill; by what Risden told him.

To the .Magistrate: lie would not know which was Ristlen and which was Rountree’-, null;.

Defendant said Itisden used to collie to his place at night milking lime and tell him how much milk lie required. The quantity varied according to wlial Ristlen had left over from the pievit ms fliiv.

The Magistrate: What, did ho do with the milk letl overh

Defendant : lie told me lie gave it to the Iced house. The Magistrate: What do you moan |,v a feed lions-.*—a hoarding-house' Defendant: I don’t know what ho meant. I never asked him. In further evidence defendant said he had been twenty-four years in the" milk trade, both wholesale and retail, and he had never had any trouble before. .Ristlen bad told he didn’t mind the line, but it "mild do him no good when the customers read tlm papers next morning. He was still supplying milk daily to plaint-ill.

To Mr Tracy: lie did nut know whether it was his mill; on the cart or not.

Recalled by the Magistrate, plaintiff said lie did not know what defendant meant "lien he talked about a feed house. He had never used the term. Turning to defendant, plaintiff said dramtically. “I>u you know Charlief” (Laughter). The Magistrate said he thought it had better he known as a mystery house.

In giving judgment, the Magistrate said it was difficult to explain bow mill; sometimes became below standard. Defendant bad rightly stated that lie did not know whether it was bis mill; or not. The probabilities were that it was bis milk. The Bench was satisfied that plaintilf was <q>ea!;ing the truth. There was no doubt that where one man s.hl milk t<> another, especially for re-selling purposes, n must he ol good quality. Mr Widdowson said he had every rey-on to believe that in selling the mill; which proved to be not of a merchantable quality Rountree was a-, innocent :i> he hini'elt "as. Many men who had lieen caught selling milk below standard had been taken by surprise, and defendant was probably of these. On the other hand there were many careless people. Judgment would be for the amount claimed.