DAIRYMAN CHARGED

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 150, 21 December 1929, Page 11

DAIRYMAN CHARGED

ALLEGED BREACH OF LICENCE

CASES DISMISSED

Two informations were heard recently against Guy Thwaites, a dairyman, of Wellington, in the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. E. Page, S.M. The defendant was charged under Section 8 of the- Wellington City Milk Supply Act, 1919, that being the holder of a licence, dated the 6th June, 1929, issued by the Wellington City Council, he was knowingly concerned in the breach of the terms and conditions of the licence, namely, by selling cream other than that supplied to him by the council. He was also charged, under Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908, that on 16th November, 1929, he did obstruct one Frederick William Bawlinson, an officer under that Act, while in the,exercise of his powers thereunder. The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. On the first charge Mr. J. O'Shea appeared for the Wellington City Council, and Mr, W. E: Leicester for the defendant. Mr. O'Shea stated that about 8.20 a.m.' 6n 16th November, Mr. Eawlinson, an inspector in the employ of the council, had seen a cream supplier named Spackman stop at the door of Mr. Thwaites's shop and enter the shop with a'2-gallon can of cream. Spackman had come put of the shop without/carrying the can. On being approached by Mr. Rawlinson, Spackman had denied that he had sold any croam, and stated that- he- had bought bread at the shop. Thwaites had been seen and denied that he had received any cream. Shortly afterwards Mr. Eawlinson obtained the services of a young lady: in the employ of the counciland this young lady on entering the shop and asking for cream had been supplied with J-pint by Miss Anderson, who was then in the shop. Mr. Eawlinson had gone back into the shop and obtained a statement from Miss Anderson that she- had sold the -cream. - No cream had been obtained from the Wellington City Council ■ that day, and the necessary inference was that the cream had been sold from that supplied by Spackman.

For the defence, counsel statea that it was admitted that 8d worth of cream had been sold on that morning. Miss Anderson was a friend of the defendant's wife and knew nothing about the terms of the licence. The defendant's daughter had purchased i-pint of cream for cooking purposes "and had left the cream in the- living quarters of the shop from which Miss Anderson had obtained it unknown to the defendant for the purpose of obliging the young lady purchaser. There was no cream stocked for sale nor any intended for sale.. . . . .

After evidence in support of these contentions had been given by the defendant aud his witnesses and the charge had been amended by . Mr. O'Shea to one, under section 6 of the Wellington City Milk Supply Act, 1919, of selling not in accordance with the terms.of the license the Magistrate stated that although; there were' certain suspicious circumstances he was of the opinion that the proof fell short and thb charge' was dismissed.

On the second charge under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, Senior-Ser-geant Ward prosecuted and Mr. AY. E. Leicester appeared: for the defendant. Mr. Ward stated that the obstruction had taken place when Mr. Rawlinson returned after the-sale of .the cream and demanded 'entry, itb the . premises for the purpose of taking samples of the cream as an inspector under the Act. The defendant had refused him admittance, and had obstructed him by putting, his arms in the doorway. Mr. Rawlinson had full powers of inspection and search as a health officer. Crossexamined by counsel, Mr. Eawlinson stated that he was not making the search as an inspector of the council, but as a health..officer.'. He did not produce his authority because he was not asked for it. He admitted that ho had previously made a search in the shop without finding any cream, and that in the first instance he could, as ia health officer, havo examined the premises without the necessity of endeavouring to obtain a sale. He had sample bottles in his pocket, but he did not produce them to the defendant. In answer to the Magistrate,' Mr. Rawlinson stated that his real purpose was not to get evidence for the council, but to obtain samples to test the standard of the cream sold.

Tho Magistrate, in dismissing the charge, stated that he must be clearly satisfied that Mr. Rawlinson was there as an officer under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and not for any other purpose. It was not clear in this case, and in view of this doubt the charge could~not.be sustained.