“FLIES AND FOOD.”

Hokitika Guardian, 27 March 1925, Page 4

“FLIES AND FOOD.”

IMPORTANT TO FRUITERERS. CHRISTCHURCH, -March 26. A fruiterer and confectioner named Olliver Luxton .Mr C. S. Thomas), whose shop is situated in Sea \ iew road, New Brighton, pleaded not guilty to a charge laid against him by the Health Department, represented by Mr J. A. Flesher. of having failed to protect fruit, commonly eaten in an uncooked state, from flies, dust and unwholesome matter.

Counsel for the Health Department said that Luxton had placed dessert fruit outside his shop window on a shelf for sale. He had been warned twice about the matter and told to cover it. hut he had taken no steps to protect the fruit from the dirt of the streets and footpaths. “ T warned Luxton in the springtime—in the lettuce season.” said Health Inspector T. E. Schott, in the course of his evidence, “that he must not keep his fruit outside in the front of his shoo exposed to flies and dust. 3 told him if he wanted it to be in the open he would have to enclose the fruit in a glass ease. . . I warned him again in the stone fruit season.”

Cross-examined by Mr Thomas, the Inspector said that apples and quinces and tomatoes were placed outside the shop. “One, of the boxes of tomatoes was marked ‘ sauce tomatoes/ ” he continued, ‘ “ but the others had no

label on them and I think people would have bought them for eating purposes. I would have eaten them.” "Yc>,” said Mr Thomas, “so you might, but that does not prove that it uas first-class fruit for eating. Can you say whether it was first-class dessert fruit r" The witness replied in the negative.

Air Thomas submitted that the Department's action could not succeed because it had not been proved that the fruit displayed outside Luxtonbs shop was first-class eating fruit. And yet that was Hie main point; the real question was whether or not llie limit was desert or cooking limit. “T think your client has a ease to answer. Mr Thomas,” said liis Worship. Counsel for the defendant then said lie would put his client in the witness box.

In evidence Luxton said that he never out dessert fruit outside ; it was always fruit which was for cooking that was put there. The apples, however, he admitted, were dessert apples, but they had been in a ease very near the door and had been in the open hut a short while.

His Worship'held that Luxton was guiltv of a breach, although not a very serious one. He had been warned in the lettuce season and again in the peach season, hut lie had failed to protect the fruit and vegetables. He thought the tomatoes were of poor quality, hut lie believed the apples would have been eaten by the public in an uncooked state. It was in respect of the apnles that lie would have to

convict. However, he thought it was quite sufficient to convict and order Luxton to pay the costs of the prosecution. This his Worship accordingly did.