View report page

119
6. The magistrate was dissatisfied with the defendant's
manner of giving evidence and with his attitude in the witnessbox,
and stated he did not believe the defendant.
In this connection it must be remembered that the burden of
proof lies on the defendant.
It will appear, therefore, that even though a warranty is produced
in court it does not necessarily follow that it is genuine,
good and valid. And it is very desirable that the warrantor and
warrantee should both be in court to give on oath any explanation
they desire to the magistrate and to be subject to cross eaxmination
thereon.
By this means evidence may be obtained which justifies a
prosecution for giving a false warranty.
It is undesirable that the Public Health Committee or its officers
should undertake the work of determining whether a warranty
defence is sufficient or not. Statements made to them are not on
oath, and it is quite open for a disreputable dealer to produce a
forged warranty, a false warranty, or a warranty wrongly dated
and given after the date of purchase.
The Public Health Committee have no means of compelling a
dealer to produce his warranty, and he may state that he holds
a warranty when, in point of fact, he has none.
Further, it must be remembered that by the terms of the Sale
of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the defendant has to uphold the
validity and genuineness of his warranty to the satisfaction of the
justioes or of the Court, not to the satisfaction of the Borough
Council or of its Public Health Committee.
Again, whether a warranty is sufficient in law is sometimes very
difficult to determine, so much so, that in the last edition of the
standard text book on the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts the
following passage occurs:—