WATERED MILK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 312, 21 September 1918, Page 9

WATERED MILK

CASES AGAINST VENDORS ACCUSATIONS REGARDING A DRIVER The attention.of Mr. F.V. Frazer, S.M., was occupied yesterday afternoon in hearing' several charges against milk vendors df having sold adulterated milk. , 1 The City Milk Supply, Ltd.,. was charged oil tho information of F. W. Rawlinson, mi inspector under the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, on. four counts of selling milk which contained added water. _ There were. also four informations of failing to notify tho purchaser of the nature of the adulteration. The dates on which the offences wore alleged to have been committed were July 11, July 18 (2), and August 2, tho percentages of added water in each caso being 10, 14, 20, and 9.; Mr. J.-Prendeville, of the Crown Law Office, prosecuted on behalf of the Health Department, and Mr. M. Myers appeared for the' defendant company, which defended:the case.. . Mr. Prendeville said : the company had asked the Department to take certain tests, as it contended tho watering had been done by a driver in its -.employ. Two samples were taken 'from tho drivor'on July 18, ard it was found that they contained water. The

driver remained in the employ of. the firm, and on August 2 a further test was taken, which Tevealed that the milk contained 9 per cent; of-added water. With regard to tho tests taken by the Department in arrangement with the firmr no penalty was' asked for, but in respect to tho ficst information it was requested that & penalty be-imposed.' Evidence was given by Inspector Rawlinson as- to taking- tho samples whioh formed tho subject of the prosecution. He stated that on July 18 ho had taken samples at tho company's premises, and afterwards from a cart: In reply to Mr. Myers, the witness stated that it'was very unusual to take moit; than one sample from tho one man on any particular day. WitBess was aware that the company pasteurised its'inilk, and took measures to see that it was up to standard. ■ In regard to July, 18, witness agreed that provided the milk was the same as ho had tested at the company's premises, Something must have been addedto.it tffter it left. the depot'. Mr. Myers, for. the defence, said the company took full precautions to erasure that its milk was pure.; Frequent'tests were mado at tho depot flaily, and ono of the directors went round among the customers in order ,to obtain samples of the milk they had ' received., This was douo in order to ■ ascertain whether water was added by tho drivers. - The company was astonished that a samplo taken by tho inspector was. found to contain water, nnd became suspicious of the -, driver from whose cart it was taken. In accordance with an arrangement made bc- ' -twc*n the j company and tho Department a test was made by tho inspector, and it' was found that the milk being delivered by the driver in question contained water. As the man had not returned to the depot, for, moro milk there was only one inference. • Counsel .contended that tho driver should be prosecuted,.as it was believed: that he was the real offender. Tho driver had been dismissed from the company's employment on August 6. Counsel knew that the law placed jtho responsibility of the act of tho servant upon the employer, but, even so, no'maintained that in the present case the circumstances wcro such that ho blame should attach to the defendant company, which had always taken precautions to see that its servants were honest, -Sidney. Gerald Cole,; a director 61 the" ilefen'dant company,./.'enumerated theprecautions which the company took to Bee that tho milk which it distributed fras up to standard. If milk was suspicious it was, put on one side. Witness stated that his firm communicated with Dr. AVatt, of the Health Department, who was asked to assist the company in detecting the'offender. As a result it was found that milk taken from one cart contained added .water, although two hours • before samples taken from tho same milk had shown that it was up to standard. Witness ' had suggested to the Department that the driver might bo dismissed', hut tho •Department replied that it would prosecute tho'man if it considered it necessary. The driver was therefore retained in the employ of the company until 'August 6. Dr. AVatt stated that it would be better io keep the driver in ■ the company's employ until advice was received from the Department, as if he were dismissed ho might prosecute . the company for slander.. '- " William Walter Crump, also a direc-! lor of the. City Milk Supply, stated

that lie was in the habit of taking samples from the customers of the company. This was to act as a check on the drivers. Prior to July 11 the company had no occasion to suspect that tho driver who iiad since been dismissed would water the milk. Witness told the man that ha' was dismissing him because he had adulterated the milk which ho was engaged to deliver, and said ho was surprised at tho action. John Henry Cowdrey, an inspector of tho Health Department, said he had found that tho City Milk Supply always' endeavoured to comply with the law regarding tho standard of milk. His Worship said there might be reasons for the defendant believing that the prosecution- of the drive)' would he unsuccessful; but he would say no more about him as it might prejudice him if he did como before the Court. In regard to the informations relating to July 18 and August 2, Hi 3 Worship dismissed them as trivial. On the main information, however, Mr. Frazor said he was quite satisfied with the statements made by the witnesses for tho defence. It was proved that the responsible officers of the company had no knowledge of the adulteration. In that case he would inflict a nominal penalty, and on the first information the company would be fined £2, with costs £1 18s. 6d. The'second information, of failing to notify the purchaser of the nature of the adulteration, was withdrawn. A CASE OF CARELESSNESS. John Bowler, for whom Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared, was charged with having sold on August 2 milk which j contained 17 per cent, of added, water and with having failed to notify the purchaser of the nature of the adultoratioii. A plea of guilty wits entered. Mr. Pvcndeville said Bowler had been in business for about twelve years, aud had never been warned before although frequent samples had been taken. ■ . Mr. O'Leary said that on the' date of the' information, a Sunday, there was a considerable milk shortage, and Bowler bought a few gallons from three or four other vendors in order to he able to meet the requirements of his customers. He did not talce tho tronblo to test this milk, some of which had. apparently been adulterated. His Worship said he would treat the case as one of carelessness, and inflicted a fine of £5, with costs £1 18s. 6d. Ou the second information defendant was convicted and discharged. VENDORS SHOULD BE WATCHFUL. The last case heard was that against E. J. Johnsson, who was charged with having, on August 2, sold milk which contained 9 per cent, of added water. He was also charged with having failed to inform the purchaser of the nature of the adulteration. Mr. C. W. Neilsen represented the defendant. Inspector Rawlinson, who took the sample which formed the basis of the prosecution, stated in reply to Mr. Neilsen that defendant had never been previously prosecuted or warned for his milk not being up to standard. . Defendant said that he went to.tho. railway station and saw three cans in a truck which ho considered', were his. He took them, and it was while having his breakfast that the inspector took the sample. He had been in business a number of years, and no complaint had ever been made beforo regarding his milk. • , Mr. Prendeville said there was nothing to suggest that defendant personally adulterated the milk. His Worship said that constant ore and watchfulness were 'necessary on the part of vendors. Defendant had really been guilty of carelessness. Defendant would be fined £5, with costs £1 18b. 6d., on the first charge, and on tho second infprmatiou he would be convicted and discharged.