WATER IN MILK

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 205, 24 May 1919, Page 3

WATER IN MILK

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MUNICIPAL DEPOT

VENDOR PROSECUTED

The municipal milk depot was referred to in a case in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when la milk vendor named August- St. Romnin was charged before AIT. F. V. Frazer,' S.M., with having sold milk adulterated with water. Mr. Prendeville, of the Crown Law Office, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. M. Myers appeared" for the defendant. Inspector Rawlinson gave formal evidence as to taking the sample, and stated that the milk in question, came from the municipal milk depot. In answer to Ml'. -Myers, Inspector Rawlinson stated that the milk he obtained from the defendant time from the Municipal Milk Depot.. As to how the milk was dealt with when received at the depot witness said that as far as he knew it .was put into thirty gallon cans then, tipped-into vats, then it was passed through the cooling machinery, and subsequently put into five-gallon cans. It was tested, but he did not know whether any samples wero kept. Counsel: Do you know what tests are applied at the depot before tho milk goes out?—" No."

Counsel: Don't your inspectorial duties tako you into that part-of tho department?—" No."

Counsel: Do you,know anything of the method of swilling, the floors jthere?— "No."

Counsel: Have you seen them doing it? —"I have seen cans about when they are swilling the floors."

Counsel: Both clean and dirty cans?— "Yes."

Continuing, witness stated that he had heard soino vendors complaining that the milk from the depot was not keeping. Counsel then asked witness whether lie knew of .an occasion when some number of gallons of. milk sent out from the, denot found to tie sour, atad that the. depot had admitted this.

Witness replied that he had heard that some milk was found to be sour, but ho did not. know the depot had admitted it.

Mr. Prendeville interjected, and said that he was not in court to defend the depot, but simply to prosecute tho defendant. ......

Mr, Myers continued to refer to tho methods of the depot, when Mr. ,T. O'Shea said that he had been asked to watch proceedings on behalf of tho counoil and the milk'authorities; He'submitted that Mr. Myers should not be permitted to introduce irrelevant- evidence.

Mr. Myers said that'he did not desire to attack the milk depot. The system was more or less new, and no doubt the authorities were taking all the neoessary precautions to see that the milk left the depot in good condition. His client's explanation was that the milk was sold iii the same condition as it was received fropi the. depot, and counsel desired to show that tho depot was unable to overcome the difficulties. .

His Worship said that the question' of stateness of milk did not affect the present case. The defendant was charged with having added water to his milk, , Mr. Mvers said that ho had no desire to, press the matter, but he desired to point out that if the depot distributed milk in a stale condition it showed that tho depot had not yet overcome the'difficulties. | Mr. Prendeville: If the retailers have a grievance they can go to the depot and complain.

Mr. Myers No, they can't. His Worship: However, there is- no question of right of action.'' ' In answer to His Worship witness said that he took seven samples on the day on which he took the . samplo from the defendant. • The samples wcro taken from 7.15 a.m. to 9.50 n.m. The defendant's sample was taken at 8.40 a.m. The question then arose that' milk received from the depot and unsold must be returned at 2 p.m. each day, and Mr. Myers remarked "that in the case, of his client , the milk: was not,..delivered . till after, 2- p.m., therefore he couid not-re-turn it.

Mr. O'Shea: Milk that is not sold on the day' it is received must be returned.

His Worship: Assuming the milk was received the previous day Hid you take any samples on that day?—"Tes, seven." Mr. Myers said that he. desired' to call evidence.' and called a son of tho defendant. named Leon St.. Remain, who stated that he-went to-the-milk depot on the afternoon of March 21, and received twenty gallons of milk.. A portion of this milk i was taken home, and spld in the defendant's shoj) at Hataitai. Caroline St. Itomain, wife of' the defendant, gave corroborative evidence. .

Robert Matthew Guthrie, farmer, Karori, said that he used to 6upply milk to the. depot, but had ceased on March 81. He said that a composite sample of his milk was taken—a small quantity was taken each day and bottled. On oho occasion some farmer' had' drawn his attention, to the'presence of water in the rat when -the milk was passing through. Ho had also seen the tians undergoing the steaming process, and when they were finished with they were not turned upsido down. It was necessary to stand the cans upside down to-allow them to drain.

In answer to. Mr. Prendeville witness said he was not aware that out of ten cans which'had undergono thfl steamcleaning process, not- half a breakfastcup of water was obtained from the drainings. ' • / George Bradnock, farmer, of. South Karon. .said that he had also discontinued sending his milk.to the municipal depot. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the-presence of water in the vats. To Mr. Prendeville: Witness did not think it was necessary to test the milk which came from the municipal depot. Mr. Prendeville; Don't think it necessary? Witness: I do.now. Mr, Myers said that no "control" samples were kept at' the depot, and it was therefore impossible to obtain a sample of milk from any particular vat or delivery.- He submitted that it was possible for accidents to occur as the evidence he called had shown. Counsel for -the prosecutiofi ttaid that no milk was sold on '"the 'afternoon,,'»as claimed by the defendant, and-he would call evidence to prove'this. J. Steele, milk analyst at the municl-' pal depot, said that,the sample of milkwas taken after it been pasteurised. As to the evidence regarding the ■ presence of water in the vats, lie said that new hands were working, and the water ami milk were let out as soon as water was discovered in the vat. There was a shortage on that day of 776 gallons,' iand vendors were" waiting, for their, milk. *In answer to Mr. Myers, witness said that it was impracticable to keep a control sample. The method of working showed that they were conducting I the tests on tho right lines.

Paul Peters, distributing superintendent, Municipal Milk Depot, gave evidence as to the quantities of milk-supplied l to the defendant on March 2-t. No. hiilk was supplied to the defendant oil the afternoon o" that date.

Daniel John. Freus, doorman, Municipal 'Milk Depot, said the defendant. could not have received any milk with-' out Having .for it, and nny such salo would be duly recorded in the depot's bpoks. llis Worship said from the point of view of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act : ' J did not matter where the vendor pur•ml his milk. At the same time a . 'dor woilld think that in buying the "x from a municipal depot it would i bo necessary to test it. : Ordinarily, I ho nrecaiitions taken by the employees at .the depot appeared to be sufficient, bill on the occasion in question it: appeared that they experienced a rush. A nuantitv of milk was received at the depot in the afternoon, and the depot staff attempted to pasteurise it, right awav. It would not bo possible to.pa/ that the first sample test made was accurate, and as the defendant alleges lie received his milk early in the afternoon it would not be possible to say that his m'ilk had been accurately tested. If the. millrMvas not tampered with bv the defendant there was the possibility that .•jonie of the milk received at the depot from the farmers that afternoon was not up to standard. If some of the milk received at the depot 011 that day was not up to standard, and passed through the vats, and was sold to the defendant, it to nn leol&ted occurrence, and had

not happened before. As samples taken from the defendant previously had all been correct, his did not propose a heavy penalty. Mr. Myers said that.ucder the existing circumstances a penalty meant a black mark against the vendor. No harm would be done in the circumstances to waive the question of a penalty. Counsel claimed that there was just the possibility that thero was an accident in tho depot:, ami the defendant had suffer ed thereby. liis Worship was satisfied that the defendant and his family were not guilty of interfering with the milk, and he asreed thai- the caw cuuld 1;e mrt without imposing a penalty, The defendant would be convicted aiid ordered to pay costs amounting to .£2 Os: Gd.