Why was mouse in bottle?

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33790, 12 March 1975, Page 3

Why was mouse in bottle?

(N.Z. Press Association)

AUCKLAND, March 11

An appeal by the Auckland Milk Corporation against a conviction for selling a bottle of milk containing a mouse has been allowed by the Supreme Court.

The corporation was convicted on the charge in the Auckland Magistrates’ Court last September, but appealed on the ground that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was heard by Mr Justice Mahon. In his review ol the appeal, he said the mouse had been found in a milk bottle by a drainlayer at Pakuranga last April. The man, a Mr Paniora, had bought the milk on his way to work, to drink during morning tea.

When he opened the milk and took a sip, a colleague noticed a dark object in the bottle. Mr Paniora emptied the milk on to the ground and found a dead mouse in the bottle, said his Honour.

The. mouse was buried by the men, but later disinterred when an inspector from the Health Department arrived to take possession of it. This he did, taking the body away in the empty milk bottle. His Honour said the onus was on the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt.

For the milk corporation Mr D. F. Dugdale had said there was insufficient evidence to prove the mouse

had been in the bottle when it left the corporation, and that the incident might have been a practical joke by Mr Paniora’s workmates. Tests showed that the mouse could not have been in the bottle when it was being cleaned and washed, Mr Dugdale said. Its body showed no sign of being in contact with caustic soda. He also contended that no mouse could have entered the bottle between the time it was cleaned and when it was filled and sealed.

This left the possibility, he said, that the mouse had been straying through the machinery under which the bottles were being filled, and had fallen into a bottle just before it was capped. But this was unlikely, taking into account the “timorous and cowering” nature of a mouse.

Opposing the appeal, Mr R. Haines had quoted the evidence of Mr Paniora that the seal of the bottle did not seem to have been tampered with before he removed it.

Mr Dugdale said it appeared there had been considerable amusement among Mr Paniora’s workmates when the mouse was found. It was possible, he said, that someone had removed the cap from the full milk bottle, inserted the mouse, and then replaced the cap undamaged. Also, because the Health Department inspector had put the disinterred body of the mouse into the bottle, an analysis of the milk residue had not been possible. His Honour said there was a factual possibility, “reasonable and not remote,” that the milk corporation

might not have committed! the offence, and the prosecution had not proved its, case beyond reasonable doubt.

I He allowed the appeal and [set aside the conviction, and' ordered the Health Depart- 1 ; iment to pay appeal costs of; $5O.