LIGHT WEIGHT BREAD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2574, 7 August 1909, Page 3

LIGHT WEIGHT BREAD.

. 1 iOSHIB. ‘ • . At the Gisborne Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., James Erskine was charged with having sold underweight bread on July 10 Lh last. Mr Kirk appeared for the defendant who ,pleaded not guilty. Constable Dandy, Inspector of vfeights and Measures for. the Cook and Walapu Counties, said that on July iOth he was at To Arai. Mr Kirk objected to anything being said about a transaction as the siimnun- stated that'' the bread was sold, at Gisborne.

! iLs Worship said that if Mr. Kirk was tak: n by surprise lie could apply for an adjournment. _ * Mr Kirk said he did not desire an adjournment and consented to the summons being amended. Thu witness, continuing, said ho bought a loaf of bread at.Mr G. Daultons store, and upon weighing fit found it to be 3:1 ounces .short lit weight. He brought the loaf to Gisborne and weighed it again in the presence of Sergeant Hutton and found the same discrepancy in the weight. The bread was fresh. Daulton said the bread' had been purchased from one of Erskine’s carts. To Mr Kirk : He found tlie loaf underweight, purchased it, and brought it to town. He asked for the bread before it was weighed. He asked Daul-to-ii for two loaves arid told him hie wanted to weigh it. Daulton said: “There is the bread and there is the scales.” Witness weighed the loaves and purchased• them by paying ninepence per loaf. At the tinih ho bought the loaf .lie knew the weight, and could not have claimed the bread until' he paid the money. He knew when he bought the loaf that it did not weigh 41bs. George Daulton, storekeeper at To Arai, said he remembered Constable Dandy calling at Ills store and weighing some bread. He purchased two large loaves supposed to weigh 41bs. The bread was purchased from defendant’s cart ah hour before. Witness bought all liis bread from Erskine. To Mr Kirk : When Constable Dandy arrived there were seven, dozen loaves - of bread on the counter. He asked whose bread it was. Witness told him, and the Constable replied that he might ■want some of it: He weighed some, loaves on the scales, picked two out find said they would do him. He ask-, ed the price, paid for them, and took them away. Before the-/constable purchased tlie breach lie knew they were not full weight. He represented the loaves to weign 41bs before they were weighed by the policeman. Sergeant .Hutton gave evidence that when the bread -was weighed at the Police Station it was found to be under weight. Air Kirk held that-the bread, after it-was weighed and found to be short in weight was not sold as a 41b leaf. The evidence in the case was not sufficient to sustain a conviction, became the bread was not sold as a 41b. loaf after it had been weighed. Tne constable had weighed the bread before lie had bought it and knew its weight. That was where lie made the mistake in trying to get evidence for a conviction. He asked His AVorsliip to give a ruling as to whether the loaf was sold as a' 4lb. loaf or as an underweight loaf. His Worship: The constable bought the bread when he entered the shop. Your argument is merely splitting straws Mr Kirk. He wqs of opinion that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to support a conviction. Mr Kirk then raised another point. There was no evidence to show that the bread was bought from the defendant. If the nolice wanted to get a conviction the bread should have been purchased from defendant’s shop. His AVorship : Oh, nonsense Air Kirk ! Surely you are not serious about, that. Air Kirk: I must raise every point in the defence of my client. If I can assure your AVorsliip that the defendant took all reasonable steps to comply with the law, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Before His AVorship gave judgment he would ask him to visit tlie bakehouse to see tlie difficulties a baker had to contend with in trying to turn'Out full-weight bread, because it the defendant was convicted it would do him considerable harm in-business, as the. case' wou-kl be reported in -tlie -newspapers. His AVorsliip: It is of importance to the general public. Air Kirk: The general public will probably trade elsewhere and buy bread and indigestion at the same time. Air Kirk then explained the defendant’s method of making bread and how the. loaves lost weight through evaporation. . . . ... His AVorsliip said lie did not tninic he would visit tlie bakehouse. , Air Kirk called the defendant, who said that on the day the bread was alleged tar have been sold there was si. leak'in tlie roof of his oven and tlie rain ran down the side' of the bricks. and affected the guage of the heat of the oven. He had made 2700 loaves that morning. He weighed 21bs 4ozs of dough.for each loaf. Sometimes he scaled the dough, but the work was usually done by competent hands. He took all. precautions to prevent the 'loaves from being overbaked. On the same day he'weighed 14 loaves in the presence of Constable Dandy, and all were full weight. ■ The loaf in dispute, was then produced. and His Worship said it, did not appear to be -overbaked. Air Kirk: It is nice and crisp. : His AVorship: AVell you can try it after tlie case is over. To Sergeant Hutton: He weighed the bread sent out every morning, but lid not weigh the batch sent to To Arai. He was fined in Alay last .for. selling light weight bread. Samuel Clare, master baker, said he usually allowed 4nz. of dough for evaporation to each 21b-loaf. It was possible for such a loaf to lose more than4oz. by evaporation. ‘He did consider the loaf in question ,overbaked, and it would not be short weight if the full weight of dough was put in the oven. Arthur Hailey, baker, gave similar evidence. John Walsh, foreman baker for the defendant, also gave evidence that the Vain, on the morning of July lOtli affected the guage of the oven which was overheated while the guage registered a low temperature. He had boon instructed to see that all bread sent out was’full weight. Herbert’HJ all high am, an cx-omployee of the defendant, gave evidence that all care was taken' to- have each loaf full weight. His Worship said tlie public must have full .weight bread, and it was the duty of all bakers to see the loaves' were full weight- or declare the loaves under-weight as allowed by law. The defendant had been 'convicted in Alay last and should have been on his guard. . Air Kirk submitted that the defendant had taken all reasonable precautions to comply -with the Act. His AVorship: If I was in Mr Erskine’s'place I woujd weigh all the bread before sending? it out.’ I am satisfied the defendant is guilty df the charge.

Thero is no - excuse, for ..him, because it was his duty to be satisfied- that the bread was the proper weight rind, the public must be protected. A conviction would be recorded and a fine o£'£s- - costs 19s imposed.

His AVorship added that if any furflier. casos camo before him he jwould go on increasing the penalty'until the maximum of £2O was reached. A similar charge against George Daulton was then taken and defendant pleaded guilty. Air Kirk asked that a nominal penalty, be indicted and the defendant was fined Is without costs.