CASE DISMISSED

Hokitika Guardian, 17 May 1932, Page 6

CASE DISMISSED

SELLING BAD POULTRY. complaint made by buyer WELLINGTON, May 16. When John P. Ren arrived home on Saturday, March 26, with a pair of ducks purchased during the morning at the auction mart of Messrs Townsend and Paul, lie and his wife came to the conclusion that the smell precluded any possibility of ihe birds being eaten. A visit to a health inspector and a Justice of the Peace followed, and in consequence Messrs Townsend and Paul were prosecuted by the City Council at the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of selling I tainted poultry. The defendant com- j pany pleaded not guilty. in evidence, Mr Rea said that he purchased the birds between 10 a.m. ! nd noon, and took them home in his motor-ear. When lie arrived home he and his wife found that the ducks were smelling so badly that they could j not eat them. The ducks, which had 1 not been cleaned, were then taken to a

health inspector and to a Justice ol I the Peace. Mr Alexander, a health inspector said that Mr Rea brought some poultry for him to examine about 1 p.m. Witness came to the conclusion that the poultry was tainted and not suitable for human consumption. Counsel for Messrs Townsend and Paul said that the defendants were very concerned about their reputation. They were satisfied that when the ducks were* sold they were quite fit for 5 use. They would only get about 2-fd ■ on tho sale, s° there was no reason A 'llV i they should sell ducks that were at all : doubtful. The ducks were spread out i on a table in front of the auctioneer > before the sale, and buyers were free * to examine them Counsel submitted that the ducks purchased by Mr Rea must have come in contact with goods after they had been bought, and thus become tainted. A butcher employed by the defendant company said that he had handled the duck's on the day of the sale to Mr Rea and noticed nothing unusual j about them. He stated that if ducks came in contact with food such as fish they would taint very quickly. Two witnesses who purchased ducks from the defendant company’s mart on the same morning as Mr Rea stated that there was nothing wrong with their poultry. The Magistrate (Mr W. H. Woodward) said it appeared to him that for some reason or other the condition of the ducks miist have deteriorated after they came into the possession of Mr j Rea. It was well known that nil- j I cleaned poultry did not last long if it , became heated in any way. Tie thought that something of that kind had tak-

I*ll place in this case, resulting in a somewhat tainted condition. “1 do not think they were sold in licit condition.” said -Mr Wooward. “At any rate, I think there was considerable douht, and 1 propose to give the defendants the benefit of that douht and dismiss the case.” 1