A MILK PROSECUTION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 271, 10 August 1920, Page 6

A MILK PROSECUTION

.EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS,

In tho Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, before Mr. J. R. Evans, S.M., Gorrie and Malier, milk vendors (for whom Mr. M, Myers appeared) were charged with selling-milk deficient in fat. Mr. J. Prendeville appeared for the Health Department. The ■Mmplo taken by the Depnrtment'sollica showed 1.8 per. cent, of fat instead of 3.5 per cent.

Mr, Myers said Hint after investlgntions had been mado be had advised tho defendants to plend guilty. The manager of tlie firm thought that tno milk which 'ras pnld to the inspector wns tho first milk out of a 5-gnllon can, and had that been m they would hare lind the richt to claim an indemuitv. from tho City Milk Department. The invn»Mg"tinn showed that th ; « was i.nt so, and they could not really claim in-, demnity. Mr. Myers explained that the, manager exercised the utmost onro ' in llio distribution of the milk. Tho drivers who delivered the milk vers supplied with agitators, and it was their duty to agitate the milk in thfi C!i»<: b-f"i'A »l«iivory. «on« to secure .iijjl even distribution of the fat. One driver who had a 5-gallon can of milk, of which half had to be delivered to a talker, failed to take an ngilntor with him nor Hid he follow tho usual, practice under such circumstances of precipitating tho milk, with the result that, the baker got most of the cream with his milk, and there wns verv little left in the balance. No matter what caro tho employers might take, they were in th" haii.-'s of their employees.

The Magistrate: Why cannot ' tha driver bo brought before the Court for aiding and abetting in, tho sale? Mt. Myers maintained that when it was shown that all precautions had been taken by a vendor, and that the driver was negligent and not following instructions, then tlie employer should not bo penalised. It was not the fault of the employer in this case that adulterated uiijk had been sold. There was only ono way of bringing it home to those responsible, and that was to prosecute them. A fine or two would probably lend to (lie correction of tho abuses, and would tend to make tho delivery men more careful,

Mr. Prcndeville said that Gorric and Maher were engaged in the delivery of milk prior to the City Council coming into tlio business,, and there had not been, ono case .of isolliing adulterated milk brought against them. He had suggested to the Department that when they had a :lear-cut ease action should bo taken against the drivers, and as a matter of fact action was taken ..gainst two employees, but they disappeared.

Tho Magistrate said he would accept the explanation given by Mr. Myers. He held that where there was deliberate watering of the milk the vendor wan guilty of obtaining money by fake pretence, but that was not the effect In this case. Ho fined Gorric and Maher 20s. and ordered them to pay 38s. Cd. costs. A HEAVY FINK. The case against Herbert. Haines, <lairyir.an, of Berhampore, who on Friday last, through his solicitor (Mr. C. W. Neilson) pleaded guilty to six charges lif selling adulterated milk (added water ana. deficiency in solids and fat), and remanded until yesterday, was disposed of. The Magistrate eaid that he wns not prepared to accept tho explanation of the defendant that the water had found its way into the can* during fhej cooling process. Haines was fined JS, £10, and .£2O respectively on the first threo charges of selling milk Kintiiinine added water with costs amounting to SRs. Gd. in each ease, and on the nihor three charges, which were alternative, he was convicted nnd ordered to pay 7s. costs in each case.