LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 544, 26 June 1909, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. AMSTERDAM BUEB VTEU.INCTOH, INTERESTING DUTCH MILK CASH. Transactions in Dutch milk were'the subject of a civii action between David Klatzer and Company, of Amsterdam, and Lionel Caselberg and_ Company, of 15 Harris Street, Wellington, -hoard before his Honour Mr. Justico Sim yesterday. Mr. D. M. Findlay (instructed by Mr. Harold F. Johnston; 'vice-Consul for tho Netherlands) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr." C. P. Skerrott, K.C., and Mr. G. Toogood, for tho defendants.. The statement of claim set out that, in October, 1906, defendants accepted a bill of exchange drawn by plaintiffs upon defendants for £58 155., payable sixty days after sight. In tho following month, defendants accepted a second bill, of exchange for £31 10s. 3d., similarly payable, and. in December, a third bill was accepted for £88 15s. Thoso acceptances were duly presented and were dishonoured. Plaintiffs, in consequence, claimed from tho 'defendants £179 os.< 3d., the total amount of tho bills of exchange. This represented the price of 200 cases of Meadow. Brand condensed, milk sold and delivered to tho defendants in October and November, .■ 1906; Defendants' filed statement was to the effect that tho bills of exchange wero foreign 'bills, and had not been protested for non-payment. Tho bills had been drawn and accepted m the following circumstances: — Plaintiffs. agreed to supply tins >of preserved milk described as ' 'partly skinunea"; plaintiffs'.;tendered to tho defendants three shipments, tho" first of which arrived in Wellington on October" 30, 1906, bnt defendants said that the goods did not answer the description contained in the contract of the" sale, as the mil't, they alleged, was "proserved milk, wholly skimmed, and not partly skimmed,". Defendants thereupon rejected tho whole of tho shipment, as they were entitled to do, and notified the plaintiffs that tho shipments were at their disposal. Defendants also said that the milk was not saleable, 'and its.'disposal was illegal under tho •Adulteration Trevcntion Act of 1880. Consequently, tho bills of exchange were void, inasmuch as they wero given for an illegal consideration. A counter-claim was mado -that defendants had.been put to considerable expense in their endeavours to placo the milk on the market. They had boon prosecuted, moreover, 1 for selling tho milk, and fined. The caso was reported in tho newspapers of Wellington, where defendants carried on business, and those reports were telegraphed all over the Dominion. This resulted in a loss to their business. Defendants therefore claimed £286 9s. 3d., as special damages, and £250 as general damages, i Plaintiffs, in their defonco of tho counterclaim, denied that they warranted tbe Meadow Brand milk to bo "of a most superior quality, and partly skimmed,", or that thoy gave,,any warranty whatever. They denied that the defendants bad suffered any loss or injury as alleged, and said that the defendants were well aware of the quality and contents of" tho milk when they purchased it i Mr. Findlay, in opening, read a letter from the defendants 'to tho plaintiffs, in which it was stated that something in tho nature of a trust'existed in connection with the sale of, Nestle's and Milkmaid condensed milk 'in' New Zealand. • Traders wero Baid to rooeivo bonuses for selling tbeso brands, ,to tho exclusion of others. . Lionel Caselberg, one 1 of 'the defendants, stated that 350'6ad mill? wore reshipped to Amsterdam when 'the firm wero prohibited from selling, it in -Now Zealand. ( The cases'were returned intaot, with \the message that if plaintiffs had amy confidence in therr articlo thoy would accept them. This thoy did not do. - , , To Mr. Skerrott: When tho milk arrived it was not analysed, but .experts tasted it with other brands and declared it to bo of fino quality. Part of tho description on tho label read as follows:—"Condensed'milk. 'This milk, prepared from best cows' milk on tho richest pastures in Holland,- is absolutely free from bacteria and all noxious germs, and i excels in every respect the fresh milk, as it is of uniform quality and easier to digest." Printed prominently across the label wero tho words, "Purest milk." Tho mills was advortiscd largely and good business resulted all through the Dominion. On a visifto Australia in 1906 witness learned from a merchant that, the > Government of Now ■ South Wales was making stringent regulations regarding the quality of health foods. His informant said that goods selling then in' Melbourne' wero not fit for the Sydney market. Tho merchant had a tin analysed, and reported that it was not salcahlo in Now South Wales because it showed no butter-fat. On i December- 17, 1906, witness was fined £I', with £4 10s., costs- Tho amount of £52 10s. had been spentjn advertising tho milk. 'James "Scott .Maclaurin, Government Analyst,''stated that he had found the sample of Meadow Brand milk to contain 1.45 per cent, of butter-fat, to about <o per cent, in the mill{ pefore condensing. The milk was 'therefore of a decidedly low grade, and t was condensed skimmed milk. For ordinary milks (not condensed) the standard was 3.42 per cent., under the old Act 2.5. Tho statement on the label that the milk "excels in every respect fresh milk" was not justified by 'his analysis. To Mr. Findlay: "Skimmed milk" did 'not imply, in tho popular sense, milk from which ovory trace of butter-fat had been removed. This milk wqs a wholesome and safe food. ■Re-examined:. Tho'milk was a little better than separator milk, whoso standard went up to .3. L' ': "- His Honour reserved judgment.