Compiled by Cameron McCullough
FRUIT Inspector Wadeson charged Leslie Batters with having, at Dandenong on 16th March, failed to comply with directions given by informant in accordance with the Fruit Act 1917 also with selling fruit (peaches) on the same date, such fruit not being stacked or arranged as prescribed by the regulations of the said Act.
Mr. Hill appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.
Informant stated that he inspected defendant’s fruit stall at the Dandenong market on Tuesday, 16th March, 1926; also with selling fruit (peaches) about two feet high by three feet wide.
Witness examined the peaches, and found that those in the front were of good average quality, but those at the back, where defendant was serving, were small and shriveled.
Defendant was not at the stall, but an employee was there. Witness and the employee then saw defendant, and the employee called to him, but he took no notice.
Witness went to defendant, and spoke to him, then went to the stall and took a double handful of the peaches that were being served, and drew defendant’s attention to the difference in those peaches and those in the front.
Defendant took some peaches from the stack, and these were even better- than those in front.
Witness told defendant he had two lines of peaches – a good line for the front, and inferior quality for the back – and directed him to arrange the peaches properly and not to sell any more until he had done so.
Defendant said witness was “only looking for a case.”
This was about 1.15pm, and when witness returned to the stall at about 2.45pm he found it to be exactly the same.
Defendant’s employee was serving peaches, and putting small ones in the bag.
To Mr. Hill: The employee served inferior peaches in the presence of defendant. Defendant sent for the Shire health inspector, who would have nothing to do with him. Defendant took a “bluffing” attitude.
The purchasers could not see the back of the stack, and only a very tall man could do so. Defendant threw any rotten peaches aside, and did not sell them.
To the Bench: At least 80 per cent of the peaches at the back were inferior to those in the front.
Mr. Hill said his client had no case to answer. It had not legally been proved that peaches were fruit according to the Act.
This might seem ridiculous, but the Act said articles must be proved to be fruit.
Mr. Freeman, P.M.: I don’t quite appreciate your contention.
Inspector Wadeson said peaches were gazetted as fruit on 14th May, 1918, but these regulations had been repealed. He would have to ask for an adjournment, to get counsel’s opinion on the matter.
Mr. Hill contended that all fruit had to be gazetted as such in the Commonwealth “Gazette,” and peaches had not been so gazetted.
Informant said he had no copy of such a gazette. He had prosecuted according to instructions from the Department.
The P.M.: It’ is undoubtedly well known that peaches are fruit, and it is also known that briar bushes are thistles, by Act of Parliament.
Peaches are not specified. We might have tomatoes gazetted as fruit, although many people might think they are vegetables.
If Parliament had not enacted that fruit must be specified, we would be justified in using our own judgment, and say peaches are fruit, but I am afraid we must uphold the point raised by Mr. Hill.
Informant said he would have to get the opinion of counsel, and in these circumstances he would withdraw the first charge, but would go on with the second charge.
Mr. Hill raised the same objection.
Until peaches were proved to be fruit within the meaning of the Act there was no proof that the inspector had authority to give instructions.
The P.M. said there seemed to be two definitions of the section, and the inspector had certain powers to examine fruit in packages.
But it also seemed that the inspector had no power in this instance, as peaches had not been gazetted as fruit. In the circumstances, he thought it better to withdraw this charge also.
Informant: I will withdraw it.
The P.M.: Very well.
Similar cases against another defendant were also withdrawn.
***
Personal
Ex Cr. Wm. Longmuir, who has disposed of his orchard and farming property at Tyabb, intends making his home at Frankston.
Mr. John Thomas Box, late of Epsom Road, Ascot Vale, and Frankston, who died on 12th May, left personal estate valued at £11,654.
By his will made on 21st January, 1924, testator bequeathed his property to his widow, daughters and relatives subject to bequests of £25 each to the Alfred and Melbourne Hospitals and the Methodist Church, Frankston; £60 to St. Paul’s Church of England, Ascot Vale; £15 to the Bush Aid Society of Australia and Tasmania; £20 to the Queen Victoria Hospital, and £10 each to the Women’s, Children’s and Austin Hospitals.
The death took place on Monday, May 31, of a very old and highly respected resident of Emu, in the person of Mr. John Whyte, age 83 years, father of Mr. L. Whyte, S.M., at Seaford.
The late Mr. Whyte, who was born in Dundee, Scotland, came to Victoria in 1864, and lived at Emu for 47 years. He was the first ganger placed in charge of the newly-constructed northern section of the Victorian Railways system and was very highly thought of by the Department.
The late Mr. Whyte was prominent member of the Masonic lodge. His remains were interred in the Presbyterian portion of the Bealiba cemetery.
Bro. Rachella conducted the Masonic portion of the burial service.
A family of thirteen, the youngest of whom is Mr. Whyte, S.M., mourn their loss.
We are pleased to learn that Mrs. Coxall, who has been indisposed for the past few weeks, is now progressing favourably.
Two Frankston High school boys Alan Logan and J. Bowes left this week for the city. The former has secured an appointment in the E.S. & A. Bank and “Jacky” Bowes has joined the clerical staff of a steamship company.
***
The Federal Football Association Independent Tribunal sat at Mentone on Wednesday, June 9, consisting of Messrs. P. Talloch (chairman), F. T. Le Page, H. P. Peterson, and A. D. Anderson.
Arising out of the Chelsea v. Carrum match played on May 15, at Chelsea, Field Umpire Lucas reported that he had been accused of accepting a bribe.
Lucas stated that while he was in the dressing-room after the match a man who appeared to be under the influence of drink, said to him: “Carrum squared you; they gave you ten bob to let them win. My name is –––– and I am connected with the Chelsea Club”.
Lucas then identified the man who had used the words alleged.
In defence it was stated that the dressing-room was in semi-darkness. Abuse was flying around. Witness saw the umpire behind the door, but did not speak to him. He (witness) heard a woman outside call out something about 10/-.
The chairman announced that they found witness guilty of unseemly conduct, and while he would escape with a caution, the club must be warned that when one of their officers acted wrongly punishment would fall on the club itself. Officers of clubs must give umpires every assistance and support. Costs were awarded against Chelsea club.
***
From the Pages of the Frankston and Somerville Standard, 18 June 1926
