An Artful Dodge.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3918, 21 September 1891, Page 3

An Artful Dodge.

At tbe Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchnrch, on Sept 9th, before Messrsß, Beetham, R.M., and ■ * H.J. Hall, J. P., Elef threy Demetry ~| was charged with having, under color / Auctions Act, 1885, acted ayHVroneeer in the sale of fish. ■■■' Sergeant Briggs conducted the prose- ■ cution, Mr Stringer appeared for the I defence. It appears that fishermen, " — '-~ on account of the perishable nature of their wares, are allowed to sell by auction (not being licensed auction* eers) at any hour of day or night all kinds of fish except shellfish. Tbe offence charged against tbe defendant was that he sold two bags of crayfish by auction on August 6th* The evidence of three fish dealers was to the effect that on the date named, at the place in Sydenham, where these fish auctions are held, the defendant bad two bags of crayfish to dispose of. Be placed on each a single herring, and, putting up one of the lots, called

. onft-'fljpr mind, I'm selling you a this' time, nothing else ; how -" much for the herring ?" Bids were ; made and both lots were sold, the T purchaser taking ihe herring and the j crayfish. Professor Hutton, called !>y ; the prosecution, deposed that crayfish

Were undoubtedly shellfish. Shellfish

was not a scientific, but a popular term. Crayfiyh were perishable, but much lees bo than scalefish; they Were more shellfish than the oyster, mußsell, etc. For the defence Mr Stringer Baid the devices of the herring would not, of course, draw the myrmidons of tbe law off the scent from the offence, if one had Ween committed, but he submitted that crayfish was not shellfish, and would be included in the kind of fish for the rapid sale of which the Act was designed. Further, that the Act did not set out.a penalty, but referred for | that back to some existing Act. To if ascertain this they had to go to the K Canterbury Auctioneers Act, 1854, ■ Which specified a penalty, but said the penalty was to be collected by a Provincial Government officer.

The Finances Arrangement Act did - not state how that officer's duties were

to be taken up since the abolition of the provinces, so that if a fine were ' inflicted there was no machinery for collecting it. Mr Beetham pointed out a clause in the Abolition of Provinces Act, which seemed to apply. He held that cray-fish was shellfish, and held over consideration of the i,. other