SLAUGHTERED CALVES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10615, 14 June 1920, Page 2

SLAUGHTERED CALVES

A QUESTION OF EXPOSURE MAGISTRATE DISMISSES INFORMATION. On Saturday morning in the Magistrate's Court, Mr ■ IV. G. lliddel), S.M.. delivered his reserved judgment in the case in which Thomas Swinburne Merrall was charged with unlawfully exposing for sale meat slaughtered elsewhere than in a registered abattoir.

The defendant, who is a pork butcher ■ with premises at 133, Iliddiford street. Newtown, purchased two calves, one of which was slaughtered on private premises at South Karori, and the other at Miramar. Proceedings were taken against him by Mho City Corporation under section 17 of the Slaughtering and Meat Inspection Act for exposing two carcases of veal for sale. The facts were admitted to the extent—(l) That the defendant purchased two calves; (2) that they were not slaughtered at a registered abattoir; and (3) that the calves were hung in a back compartment of the shop. . . , . . • * The magistrate, in his judgment, said that the question was whether the defendant, by his act of hanging the calves where he did, had brought himself under the section of the Act. Counsel for the defence lhad brought the question of exposure to notice in regard to its application under the Licensing Act and the Imperial Act dealing with margarine and • unsound meat, while the leading case in New Zealand fin re Brig gins) was also quoted to show' that some risibility was necessary. After reviewing the evidence m detail and quoting a mini her of other cases which had a direct bearing on the one at issue, the magistrate saad that he was not satisfied that “the carcases were visible to, or by, customers, and, in any ease, they were not exposed for sale./ What was dqne did not bring the action of the defendant within the section of the Act, and the information wbuld therefore be dismissed. _ At the hearing Mr J. O Shea (City Solicitor) appeared for the prosecution and Mr H. P. O’Leary for the defendant.