CASE AGAINST DAIRY COMPANY

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LII, Issue 8478, 27 December 1923, Page 3

CASE AGAINST DAIRY COMPANY

At the Magistrate's Court, Roto- ! rua, on the 20th inst., the Rotorua | Co-operative Dairy Company was I charged that on October 10 it sold j butter containing 16.5 parts per cent ; urn of water, and pleaded not guilty, j H. Martindale, inspector under the i Food and Drugs Act, said he took a ■ sample of butter from Mr Manson’s ; shop, who said the butter came dir- ; ect from the Rotorua butter factory, j He sent a part of the sample to the | Government analyst, whose report : stated that the butter contained 16.5 | per cent„ of water, which was .5 or h per cent, in excess cf the amount ; allowed by the Act. ; To Mr Urquhart: Factories tried i to get as near 16 per cent,-as pos- j sible; it was recommended by Gov- | eminent Inspectors that they should * do so. Blitter containing an excess j of 16 per cent, would not. pass for | export. Witness did net know on j what day the butter was sold to Mr j Manson. He was certain it contain- ; ed the company’s label. Mr Urqu- j hart said it wa s important that the s date of the sale of the butter to Mr Manson should be known, as the Company maintained they did not manufacture the butter in question. He went on to explain chat the company was making alterations during the period in question. It' sold its winter supply of cream to the Hinuera Company, being treated like an ordinary supplier, :ml rebought whatever butter was required. This obtained until October 1. The Rotcrua Company did nob recommence manufacturing until October 4, and there was no sale until October 4, as the company’s books would prove. They asserted that Mr Manson bought the butter on October 1, and bought no more from the Rotorua Company during .. that month. The Court adjourned j for a few minutes at this' stage, s while' Mr Martindale asked Mr Man- ? son a few questions on the telephone. | On returning, he said Mr Manson - had stated that he 1 had bought no ;i more butter from the Rotorua Company after October 2 during the j month in question. j Mr Urquhart said they wished io ventilate the circumstances, in view \ of the company being innocent sufferere. He quoted parts .from the agreement made between the Hiu- J uera and Rotorua companies, amounting practically to a warrant. - He would likju to make it clear that : the butter in question _ had been manufactured by the Hinuera Company. The Magistrate said it was not- a serious affair. It was quite clear from the evidence that the Rotorua Company did not manufacture the butter in question, but they sold if. covered with their label ; there was’ no doubt about- that- Mr Manson had bought on October 2 ; he bought no more during the month from the Rotorua Company, consequently the butter sold to the Inspector on October 20 had not been manufactured bv the Rotcrua Company. The verdict would be against the <>dendant. with a fine of £5 and costs L2/10 6. —Rotorua Chronicle.