A MILK SAMPLE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18016, 7 March 1924, Page 9

A MILK SAMPLE.

UNLAWFUL ADDITION OF CREAM. DAIRY COMPANY DEFRAUDED. (SPECIAL TO ''THE PRESS.") NELSON. March C. A most unusual case came before Mr T. >:. Maunsell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Allan Painter, of Appleby, farmer, v.-as that on November 10th. 1923, .-Lii'i February 15th, 1924, he obtained from the Waimea Dairy Company tho sum of £lO 9s by means of a false pretence, io wit, the unlawful addition of cream to his sample of milk supplied to the company, thus falsely representing that his miik as supplied to the company wa s of greater value than was in truth and in tact the case with intent to defraud the said Waimea Dairy Company of the said sum of £lO 9s. A further charge against the accused was that he stole a key. valued at _s, the property of Charles Fargher and others forming the Waimea Dairy Company. Senior-Sergeant Barrett, who conducted the prosei ution, handed in a .statement by James Edward Stewart, manager of the company. This stated thai about November 10th last he had reason to doubt the sample of milk in bottle No. 4. This bottle contained :i sample of milk taken from the daily supply of one Allan Palmer, of Appleby. The doubt arose from the rise in the test, which was only 0.3, and jumped to 4.0. Ho then took a test of his daily sample each day, and it worked out at 3.3. He then placed skim milk in the test bottle, and found that cream had been added to the skim milk. On the morning of January 21st he unlocked the door of the sample box, leav. ing the key in Ihe lock. This was about G a.m. At about 9 a.m. on the same dato one of the factory hands went to lock the box, and found that the key had been taken. He was present on the morning of February liith, and saw Allan Palmer hand tho key to Constable Uardy. The key was the one stolen from the sample box. Acting under instructions from a committee of the directors, he placed the matter in the hands of the police on Januarv 31st. Constable Hardy's statement was to the effect that ho'interviewed the man. ager of the company, and arranged to keep watch on the sample box at the factory. The detecting of Palmer m the act was made difficult owing to the fact that cream was added to the bottlo only once in a period of ten davs, that being the testing period. The first period had started when he commenced Vis watch on February 4th. That period ended on February lith. The cream was added in that period, possibly before he commanded to watch The following period commenced on February 11th, and at la.m. on February 15th he caught Palmer in the act of adding cream to the sample bottle. Palmar bolted, but after a short run the constable managed to stop him, and got possession oi the cream and the key of the sample box. Palmer made a voluntary statement in the presence of the factory manager, who was awakened by the constable calling out to Palmer to stop. The following statement was made bv the accused to Constable Hardy : "1 am a farmer residing at Appleby. I was not satisfied with the test of mv milk at the Waimea Dairy Company's factory, so I stole the key ot the" sample box on January 2oth, 1924 I did this so that the box would remain unlocked. This was to enable me to put cream in my sample bottle, which i have done on each occasion since November 10th, 1923. This increased my test falsely since that date. I knew I was robbing the company by adding the cream to my test bottle. The tin containing cream in Constable Hardy's possession is the sample I was going to add to my test bottle. To-night Constable Hardy caught me in the act of doing this, ' The chairman of the company (Charles Fargher) eaid that about February 18th he received a letter and a cheque from Palmer, The cheque was to cover any loss that the company may have suffered by the addition of cream to his sample bottle. Mr O. R. Fell, who appeared for the accused, admitted the offence. The accused, he said was a man of means, and it was difficult to understand why he had done such a thing. He did not realise the seriousness of the act. The accused and the whole family f«flt the position intensely. He would ask the Court to have regard for the consequences to accused. Since the offence had become known the punishment of the community was more than anything the Court could inflict. It was an extraordinary case of a man of good upbringing and good family committing an extraordinary offence. Accused had paid the company a cheque for £37, which more than satisfied the defalcations. Mr Fell suggested tli at it was not a oase for imprisonment. The Magistrate said it was an extraordinary offence, and a wilful attempt to defraud the Dairy Company. If the fraud had not heen detected accused would have gained more than the £lO. Accused would be fined £2O and costs 19s 4d. On the second charge of theft of the key accused would be eonvictod and discharged.