ANOTHER MILK CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 114, 11 November 1919, Page 7

ANOTHER MILK CASE

FINE IMPOSED

Another .milk prosecution was made at.the Court to-day, when a milk vendor named Frank Kettlewell was charged with having sold adulterated milk. Mr. M. Myers represented the defendant, and Mr. J. Prendeville, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the prosecution.

Outlining the fact* of the case, Inspector Rawlinson said that on the 14th August he took two samples of milk from the defendant. As witness proceeded to:take a sample from a can, the defendant said, "Don't take it from that can, but take it from the other cans." He took the sample; and the analysis showed that it contained 29 per cent, of added water. This was the official sample, but for the benefit of the defendant a sample was taken from another can, and the analysis of this showed 20 per cent, of added water. When the official sample was being taken, the defendant explained that the cans were used in the shop, and had been standing in the trough. On arrival of the milk, defendant's boy had poured a quantity into one of the shop cans which contained water. Defendant, when questioned, admitted to witness that the milk was below standard. Witness also stated that some few days prior to this he had; taken a, sample of defendant's milk, which, on analysis, showed 40 per cent, of added water.

To Mr. Myers : Defendant had told witness that two of the cans had a quantity of water in them, and for that reason witness took a sample from another can*. The defendant had an exceptionally good character as a vendor, having always been honest and Teliable in his business. Witness knew that the sample would contain water, as the defendant' admitted it.

Robert Leslie Andrews, Government ■Analyst, also, gave evidence. ' The defendant said this was the first prosecution he had been subjected to. He did not receive notice about the> sample, which showed that the milk contained 40 per cent, of water, till after the samples of the prosecution had been taken. When the milk arrived, on the morning of 14th August, one of the cans had the handle jammed, and defendant carried it off the cart, and told his boy to tip the contents into another can. Later he discovered that the boy had tipped the milk, into' a can. containing v;atei\ When the inspector arrived he asked whether the cans in the right-of-way were going out, and defendant replied : "No; we have had a little accident this morning." The inspector replied : "What was that?" -and defendant explained how the boy had tipped the milk into the can containing water The inspector then remarked that he would have to take a sample, and defendant said : "Well, you will find 40 or SO per cent, of water in it, and the inspector replied: "It will bo all the better for you." . .

The company gave corroborative evidence. ,

Mr. Myers submitted that the whole prosecution arose out of an undoubted accident.

The Magistrate, Mr. E. Page, S.M., imposed a fine of £5 and costs £3 13s 6d.