POUNDS OF BUTTER.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1922, Page 6

POUNDS OF BUTTER.

SHORTAGE OF WEIGHT. INTERESTING POINT RAISED. Can a dairy company be held liable for shortage in the weight of butter at the time of the purchase in a retailer’s shop? It was upon the solution of this question that a number of cases heard in the Waitara Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday hinged, the informations being laid under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. After hearing thte evidence one company, which admitted a technical offence, was convicted and a nominal penalty imposed, whilst informations laid against, two other companies were dismissed, the Magistrate (Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M.) making a strong recommendation to llie Health Department, who laid the informations, to have the question decided on appeal.

The Tikorangi Co-op. Dairy Co. were charged on two informations alleging that they sold butter which bore a false label in regard to the weight, of a pound of butter, which the inspector weighed in a retailers’ store in Waitara. The secretary of the company (Mr. ,1. Hine) said he was instructed by the directors to plead guilty, but to explain that the breach was committed unknowingly and with no intent to defraud.

Detailing the results of his investigations the health inspector (Mr. F. Swindells) said that, at, one store he weighed a lb pat of butter bearing the label of the defendant company and indicating the contents of the wrapper were 11b. The package registered |oz short. Other weighings totalled 281 b lloz -sdr, representing a shortage on the weight marked of lib 3oz lldr. On the same day he visited another Waitara store, and weighings of ‘butter there, which should have totalled 361 b. were short by lloz 3dr. A week later he visited the factory and saw the manager, who stated that the 11b weight had been tested and found to be light. Ho was shown a set of .platform scales weighing up to 561 b, and was told that the maehme had been tampered with, which had caused the butter to come out light. The inspector said that the platform scales were not capable of weighing finely enough to measure drams.

Mr. Hine stated that until this season his company had not been in the local retail trade for the past 12 or 15 years, and it was unfortunate that this had occurred just as they had come on the local market. Ho -said it was a pure accident. Other butter from their factory bad been weighed in another shop on the same day and found to he accurate. The defect had been remedied.

The serious view which the law took of these offences was pointed out by the Magistrate, who said that a shortage of ounces and drams in the aggregate amounted to quite a considerable quantity, and the public were entitled to protection. The heavy penalties prescribed showed how serious such breaches of this Act were regarded. He thought, however, in this case the needs would be met by a conviction and fine of £5 on one charge, and a conviction without penalty on the other charge.

Similar charges were heard against the Waitara Road Co-op. Dairy Co. and the North Taranaki Dairy Co. Defending the first ease, Mr. Bennet submitted that in the first place there was no evidence of a sale on the day of the inspector’s visit and, secondly, that the evidence of the weight of the butter 10 days or so after the sale at the factory had token place was no evidence of the weight at the time of sale, and for these reasons the information should be dismissed. He pointed out that if it succeeded it would follow that no matter how long after, or through how many hands the goods might have passed, a charge of this sort might be made at any time and brought back on to the company that made the original sale. After hearing the argument of counsel, the Magistrate said it was an intricate point, and he was going to decide it in favor of the company and dismiss the information, urging that the inspector should take means of having the decision tested.

Practically similar circumstances were involved in the North Taranaki case though the Magistrate pointed out that there was some difference in the evidence, but riot sufficient, to warrant him calling upon the defence. The informations were therefore dismissed.

Commenting on the cases the Magistrate said it seemed to him the companies were adopting methods that ■were going to get them into trouble. It was the duty thrown upon all people who vended goods under this Act to see that as a fact the weight of goods purported by the label to be sold were sold. It, was a highly penal statute, and it, was desirable that a ruling on the point raised should be obtained.