MILK AND WATER

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3151, 1 August 1917, Page 6

MILK AND WATER

VENDORS HEAVILY FINED

SEVERE CRITICISM Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday imposed heavy penalties on milk vendors convicted ol eelling milk below the standard. The cases were heard a few days ago, and . reserved judgments were delivered yesterday. ' / KAEORI MILK SUPPLY CO. In the ease of Frederick William Rawlinson, Inspector under .the bate ot Foods and Drugs Act, against, the Ivarori Milk Supply Company, 'the infonnaUon alleged that the company sold milk containing 50 per cent, added water. The company had pleaded guilty, and the Magistrate reserved consideration. Ot tue penalty to be imposed. , His Worship said the information alleged that the'company sold milk containing 50 per cent, added water. On Mav 22 last the two • directors ot tne company tested all tho milk received on that day. There was a shortage or - acallon cans, and it was decided W tie two employees (Armstrong and Jones) m charge of the straining operations to use three 5-gallon cans for the purpose oi distribution. There was, observed .the Magistrate, a very material conflict ol evidence between Armstrong and Jones as to what took place. Armstrong said three cream cans were selected, eacn. oi which had cream adhering to the sides and bottom, that he (Armstrong) washed out each of these cans , . . inadvertently leaving the water in the last can, the water occupying about one-halt oi the can. He then placed the- etainer on that can and filled it up with milk. "If Armstrong's evidence to the rioeiu,, is true, it can ouly be said that his method of cleansing was very, uncleanly" commented His. Worship. Armstrong said he did not remember .the presence of the water until ho had tiled up the can with milk, and .lie further said that he told Jones about his omission to tip the water out of the thiict can, and that they made an attempt to discover the can, but without success. Jones's story was, on-the other hand, that they used two ordinary niilk can* and one cream can. Jones said he. washed out each can with warm water and Armstrong cooled them off with cold water. Jones also said Ai'mstrong.never told him of the presence of water in the third can and that he did not attempt to find ft. After dealing with the contradictory character of the evidence, and also with the result of the analysis, particularly . the presence of boric acid, His Workup ."id? "The only method ot reconciling the evidence of Jones with the auahbi» , to ZT the inference that there was Miired into "we of tho three cans afZL ol ? cream, and that this cream was broken down with water and the resultant product attempted to be sold as milk Now, the substance analysed conK ied boric acid. Tho regulations perm ? rf thb as a preservative for cream, tat not for milk. When we consider tho divergent etatements of Armstrong and Jones, when we consider that standing , alone the analysis contradicts both of oun't for what became of the Zt Jones has given a true, acooun to the rinsin" operation. lne lnierente Sawn is "consistent with the analysis, and is the only explanation accounts for the presence of the bone acid &ScTin f ftett-o dSrs had knowledge, before the sale of what had been done. .'iho. vfdence' negatives any such eondusion, However, the individual who did this, net is in essence, a murderer. He was this act of its servant, because it wa= done in the course of his In fixing the quantum of penalty to be paid by the defendant company I cannot overlook the heinonsness act committed 5y Armstrong. One of the directors deposed that he was a careful im\ trustworthy man. His whole conduct is al indication that supervision - w -™ and <° st 3 £1 os. 6d.

COLE, CRUMP, AND CTTNDT. Mr. M'Carthy also delivered reserved judgment in the case brought by William Rawlinaon, Inspector tho Sale of FoodW Drugs Act agairrt bid, ney Gerald Cole and William Ualtei Cramp trading as Cole, Crump, and ablo precaution had been taken. His Worship said: "On .'April 3 last defendants r&eived milk from 17 iarmers. This milk was tested by defendants soon nfter delivery at their factory, and thedetendants say that in eacii ease, except two, the milk contained more thantlie requisite amount of butter-fat. lhe average from all .the samples, they say, disclosed an excess of butter-fat. Ihe analysis made foi! the informant disclosed that the sample analysed gnve a lactometer reading of i.5 less-than the avera«o milk supplied to "Wellington. The water was added to the milk cither in de'fendant's factory or shortly alter it left thoro. Ido not adopt this evidence as to the tests taken by defendants. "Counsel for the defendants contends that defendants having taken all rensonablo steps within the meaning of section 16 they canuot be convicted unless meiis re'a on their part is conclusively proved. Counsel further conteuded that sections 13 and 16 must bo read together, and so reading thorn, an employer, taxing.- all reasonable precautions is not liable ior the acts of his servants unless on proving mens rea. Now, I agree that bections 13 and 16 must be read together, but I do not arrive at the conclusion contended for. The subject matter of this legislation is, inter alia, the- people's food. It makes provision to secure tlio physical, and, therefore, mental wellbeing of the race; and the object of section 16 must not be whittled down by technical refinement of meaning." A conviction was recorded, fnd defendants were fined JC3O, with costs M Os. 6d. Security for apepal was fixed at .«10. _ Mr. V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown in both cases, and Mr. M. Myers.for the defendants in each case.