MILK AND WATER

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3173, 25 August 1917, Page 9

MILK AND WATER

VENDORS HEAVILY FINED

Thq Jiublic Health Department, represented by Mr. V. ](. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, proceeded against a

number of milk vendors in the Magistrates Court yesterday for selling adulterated milk. Mr. S. J3. M'C'arthy, S.M., was on tho bench.

August St. -Roinain, represented by Mr. 11. li. Evans, pleaded guilty to selling milk to.whicli water Juul been added. It was. explained that tho sampla was taken during tho summer, when thcro was a scarcity Of milk. The milk came from the country and arrived at all hours of tho day and night, but while tho milk was in defendant's possession it had not Men tampered with. . Air. Meredith staled that (ho added Miuer was muck as 15.5 per cent. Defendant was lined iilj, with costs totalling mi 18s. (kl. - .

A plea. Of Kuilt.Y , was- also/ entered fiv, Edward' John. Solomou toselling-adulter-ated milk. Ku said that lie hud not previously been before (ho Court. He had tested Iho milk with ;l lactometer: it camo from I'eatlierstnn, and was brought in by motor wagon. It had been discovered that th(j supplier averaged 0110 ot tho lowest at tho factory throughout tho-year in llie district. Tho milk was purchiisctl from the Wellington I'airv Company. Mr. Moredilh said that, defendant's statement \ras probably two. It t;us known that the jjiilk from (.be iwlicular supplier was low in lest, and the <•«»- pany from which the milk was obtained had been refused a liconco. Defendant was lined .CD, and costs Jil 18s. Cd. J ) tr - P- H- Putnam, on behalf <,f Alfred .lohn Slack, pleaded guilty to soiling milk 'i .""ji oll Wil,e f had been added. Counsel stated that this was another case whoro tho vendor had to be responsible for the quality of tho milk supplied by tho farmer. It was not contended thi.t lie was not. to blaiuc bccauso of tli.it, but it was submitted 'that the Court should lake thn circumstance into consideration vl;cn entering a conviction. Slack was fined jjla sad- cosrs .£1 )Bs. Gd. A plea of not guilty was -filtered by Henry Bodley, trading ns Bodloy and Co", to two charges of selling adulterated milk. Mr. T. Is r eave appeared for Bodley. It was stated by Mr. Meredith that tho sample taken showed an excess of butterfat, but there was a shortage in other solids. Tho test showed, the presence of 9 per cent, of added water. ■ ■ In giving ovidcnco tho defendant .said that he was tho agent for tho . dairy farmers, tookveharge of thq milk when it arrived at the railway station, and apportioned it out to the various vendors. He had tho milk tested, and lie possessed' a uumber of appliances for testing. Tho difficulty of obtaining' labour prevented tho tests being taken daily. He worked from 3 o'clock in tho morning'until about 1(1 o'clock at night, and sold daily about doO gallons of milk. Mr. Keave asked for a judicial ruliug as to what constituted" "all tuais-jiinble tests," as required by "ic ■ regulations. Was it necessary for each parcel of milk to be tested separately? Counsel said that if the ruliug w-as such tliat tho vendors could not comply with it, they wcukl have to go .out of . business. Mi. Meredith said tliat tho objoct of tho Act was to throw the responsibility on the vendors. The vendor, for his uwn protection could obtain a warranty firim tho supplier or lake all reasonable steps to seo that tho milk was pure and up to . tho required standard. TJio vendors,' however, would not insist upon a warranty from tin; fanners,, and if they were allowed to sell milk without first testing . it a conviction could never bq obtained, and as far as tho Act was concerned it couJd he expunged from the Statute Boole. His AVorship said milk was essential as a food for infauts, and if they were deprived of it for auy length of time their physical condition deteriorated and • was never quite recovered. On this account alone the milk.should be tested to ensure its being pure. The rase (iid not call for a pronouncement from the Bench, and he declined to accede to counsel's request. Mr. Neavc said the question concerned so many persons that he was desirous of getting a judicial pronouncement frcin someone. . Bodley was convicted and fined .CIO and costs <£1 18s. Cd. Leave to, appeal was granted. ■Sir. IT. F. O'Leary, who appeared for William Mosten, and "or Thomas Porker and Krnest Osborn. trading as Parker and Osborn,'Slid that Mosten'and his. wife kept a small dairy. He purchased his supplies from .Parker and Oaborn, and 6old it as received. Parker ami, Osborn famished .the name of thc'Mipplior, and the authorities upon following the matter up found that the milk was below the required standard when it left the farm. Air. Meredith admitted that Mr. O'Leary's statement was correct. The case was one in which tho mill; v.t.s be- [ low standard when received. The DoDartment'had nsoerfninod by examination that the Milk had not been interfered with by the'defendant, but that ('id tot ab=olvo him from blame. Mosten- w:m> fined XI. with unsls 17*. fid.. and Parker unci Oiltorn .15, with. ..•..I- 17, f.l