OUR DAILY MILK.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 139, 11 December 1908, Page 7

OUR DAILY MILK.

PROSECUTIONS BY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. ALLEGED ADULTERATION. A series of prosecutions instituted bj 1 tho Health Department against milk vendors for alleged adulteration of milk was heard by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., this morning. Mr. Myers appeared, for the Department, and the defendants were repre-. sented by different solicitors. The defendants were: — Aspin. and Mason, George Edwards, Joseph Har-i len, Jeremiah Harrington, John M'Har-. rie, Thomas Parker, Inglis and Cooper, M. Sharp, A. Stevens, P. S. Wit-ton,, D. Kavanagh. In, some cases there was more than one information. Tho information generally alleged that tho defendant sold certain adulterated food, to wit, milk, without fully informing the purchaser, at the time of the sale of the nature o^ the adulteration. The said milk was^ alleged to have been adulterated in, that it did not comply with the standard therefor prescribed by the regn^i tions made under the authority of "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1907,"' being below the standard required bjj ( the regulations in total solids and in> fatty solids. The' case, of Aspin and MasMF»*sx£». taken first. Mr. Levi appeared Jot the defendants. Ho submitted briefly that the standard was unreasonable, that' there was no proof that the excess of| water had been added by the defendants, and that they had taken tha reasonable precautions specified under,, the Act. The sample, it \vas reported, had been adulterated by the addition of not less than 8 per cent, of water. Unadulterated milk, according to text books, might havo as low a percentage) of fats and solids as 5.6, a lower per-. centage than, in the present case. James Aspin, one of the defendants, stated that in this particular instance the milk had been delivered by the; farmer to him about 9 o'clock at night. At 3 o'clock in the. morning the de» livery round commenced. The milk was obtained from farmers. Personally, the witness hadi made no test, nor had he any luiowledge of testing. He could only judge by its taste, -which he tried, every morning. Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, he..hadi heard of a lactometer, but had neverused one. His Worship here referred to a simple test of putting a polished rod of glass into the suspected liquid, and if no milk adhered then there would he mdi-, cations that something was wrong. In further cross-examination the wit* ness said that if they started to make stipulations to the farmers by way of guarantee of the milk, they would be blocked altogether in their business. Mr. Myers submitted that the statute threw the onus on the defendants, the milk vendors, of proving that the milk had been adulterated elsewhere. What the department wanted to do was to show publicly that such cases would bo followed by proceedings invariably. It was just as well that persons dealing in goods should know what their liabilities were. One information would be withdrawn. His Worship entered a conviction and imposed a fine of £2, with oosts £3 153, on the defendants, Aspen and Mason. Mr. Blair appeared then for the defendants Haslen and Edwards, and Mr. Herdman for M'Harrie and Harrington. Carl Albert Schauer, Chief Inspector of Health Department, said he took a sample of milk from Mr. Edwards's cart on the 25th August at Newtown. There was perhaps a gallon and a quarter in the can. In the case of M'Harrie the can was three-quarters full. In another case there was a little over a gallon in the serving can. To Mr. Herdman : He did not examine particularly the quantity of milk in the serving can. To Mr.' Blair: He did, not examine the ptheu cans on the cart beside th<» serving can. He did not know that informations had been laid against other milkmen. He had collected oamples from the men, that was all. Mr. Herdman submitted that when Mr. Schauer purchased the milk from M'Harrio, the man had actually finished his rounds. Tha milk was not intended for human consumption, but was to' be returned to the depot. The sample wag' not taken from the bulk of the milk delivered to customers. The very weakest milk came from the bottom of the can. There were thus two grounds of defence _ — first, that the milk from which the sample was taken was not intended for human consumption ; and, second, that the sample was not taken from the bulk, of the milk. Benjamin Seaburn, milkman for Mr. M'Harrie, said that the inspector had taken the sample after he had finished his rounds, and had only a few To Mr. Myers : The milk left over was taken back to the shop and sold, for all he knew. John M'Harrie, milk "vendor, said he was in the habit of testing the milk sent out, by a lactometer. On the particular occasion the milk showed 12 per cent, belter than pure, but it was tested at a lower temperature than usual. Two cans of the milk had been procured indiTw^Jg, from the Fresh Food and Ice Gualpaiifc. The last lot of milk at the bottom ot tls can was always inferior. To Mr. Myers : The end of July was the worst season of the year for milk, and he had given strict 'orders not to selL milk. The milk was tested afterwards, and showed with the tester about 2 per cent, below pure. Mr. Blair submitted, on behalf of Mr. Edwards, another defendant, that milk sold by him had first been pasteurised. In the cases both of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Haslam the samples were very little below the standard of the department's regulations. As a matter of fact, the standard was impossible, and at certain agricultural shows the prize-winning cows had fallen below the standard. He understood that even the State farm milk did not come up to the standard. WHAT THE DEPARTMENT'S TESTS SHOWED. In answer to Mr. Blair's statements about the excessive minimum standard, Mr. Myers pointed out that tho niiniof 3.25 for fatly solids was not 'greater than in other parts of the world. In Parjs a minimum percentage of 3.5 was established. The Public Health Department had made an analysis of 77. samples, in the case of 34 of which proceedings, had been taken, and the average percentage of the whole 77 was no less than 3.58. If the five worst samples outside the 5h woe added to the 34, the average percentage was then 3.25, the minimum ' standard required. With regard to the argument about taking samples from the bottom of the can, that part was "sold to the public as well as the rest of tho milk. His Worship reserved his decision in the case of M'Harrie. Additional evidence was heard in the case of Jeremiah Harrington and F. 8. 1 Witlon. Fines of £2 and costs (£3 15s) were imposed on F. S. Witton and D. Kava-v nagh, who pleaded guilty. Judgment was reserved in the cases of Haslam, M'Harrie, Edward^ and HarriDgtqn.