FRESH FOOD AND ICE CO. FINED

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 949, 17 October 1910, Page 6

FRESH FOOD AND ICE CO. FINED

MILK PROSECUTION. :jj ■v At the Magistrate's Court on Saturday Mr. W. G.' Riddell, S.M.; delivered reserved judgment in the case in which. . the Public Health Department proceeded against, the Fresh Food and loe. Company, 'l'iie charge, was one of sell- ' ing milk on August 10 that oontained . a greater quantity of water than r is': per-: "■ mitted by the Sale of Food andvDrugs Act, 1908..,; - '■■■;• The magistrate . said that, according ' to the standard fixed milk should con-' tain not less than 12 per cent of total solids, not" less , than 8.5 per cent of solids not fat; not 'less than 3.25 per ' cent of fatty solids, and not more than 1 per cent of ai;h. An analysis of tsio sample obtained from the defendant ■ company disclosed -its constituent' parts :; to be: Total solids, 11.72 per cent; solids,not fat, 7.42 per cent; fatty solids, 4.30 . per cent.. ' There: was' also, a statement by ; the -, analyst ;that the; sample con-' tained 12.71 per cent of -water in oscess of that allowed. '■;> ■' ... The defenco had not sought dispute the <x>rrectness of the certificate, but had sought to show that the evi- • dence for the prosecution was not' suf- ! ficient to make the Fresh Food and 100 Company liable for :the presenoe of any excess of water, 1 that the milk had been sold exactly as received from the supplier, and that," although water, was pre- v sent in excess, it had'not been added artificially. :y- ---.. In support, of ■ tiis' defence, : Professor- i. Easterfield. had beeu called, and', had . given his'opinion that .no water had: , been added to the sample tested by him. This, opinioav, was ' opposed' toythat . ex-,'?' pressed by I)-r. MacLaurin on> behalf of • I'the prosecution; but it. was unnecessary , to discuss - the methods by which the two experts' had arrived at their re- : : suits,'as different-. methods had been employed by. each, imd neither had tho same, object;'in view when making His test. "The analyst's certificate," con- : turned f>h4 -magistrate,! "is } ; pnma. faci«, evidence*,. and it shows that this sample 4 of' milk had-12.71 more water than ,is allowed by the y stahdard'. ; ■■ It therefore contained 'a substance whose addition is prohibited by-: regulation. The sale of an article of-food, in which is found a substance prohibited by regulation constitutes the offence, and, as defendant : is;not charged with .'adding 1 : .'water to the milk sold, it seems to me that, in applying the provisions of the statute v to the facts, tne Court is not concerned. ; to find how the 'prohibited snbstanca.. found its way into the article sold."- - A fine of 40s. was imposed, with costo 75., analyst's fee 10s. 6a.-, and solicitor's ■" fee £2 2s. Security for leave to appeal . was fixed "at ; £10 10s., and_payment of fino and. costs. Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared'for the 1 Department and tho Hon. T. W. Hislop for , the-defendant company.