LABOUR TROUBLE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 81, 3 October 1910, Page 8

LABOUR TROUBLE.

INCREASED WAGES WANTED. By Telegraph.— Press Association. — Copyright. (Received October 3, 1.30 p.m.) ADELAIDE, This Day. The employees in the State Government way and works yard have declined to handle pig iron at a shilling an ' hour, and ' are asking for an additional threepence. No work was done on Saturday.

SALE OF MILK. *

ALLEGED ADULTERATION. WAS WATER ADDED? At the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., the Wellington Fresh Food and Ice Company, on the information of the Department of Public Health, was prosecuted for an alleged sale of milk adulterated with water, on the KH-h August. Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. T. W. Hisiop for defendants, who entered a plea of not guilty. Mr. Ostler stated that the information was laid under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, which provided that every person commits an offence who* sells milk adulterated with any substance, the addition of which is prohibited by regulation, and the regulation prohibiting the addition of water was quoted. The analyst's certificate showed thafc there was a proportion of 13 per cent, of water in defendant's milk ; that meant that for every £1 worth of milk sold, 2s 6d worth wae so much water and represented clear profit to the vendors. Evidence was given by Carl Albert Schauer, chief inspector for the Health. Department, that oil the 10th August, he obtained a sample of milk at defendant's depot; part he placed in one bottle, sealed it, and left with the company j part he delivered in another sealed bottle to Dr. M'L&urin, and the other he retained and p«)duced. The milk was fresh, and witness stirred it thoroughly before taking it; he was informed at the depot that it was just as it had been received from the farmers, though a guarantee could not be given with the milk. Counsel for the defence pointed out that the information charged the company with having added water to the milk, but this had not been dome; the milk being as 16 came from the cow. Mr. Ostler: We do not suggest that the water haa been added by man, but thafc it had been added either by nature or by man. It was not necessary to prove the addition of water, bat that the water was there, and the regulation prohibited the sale of such milk. Mr. Hisiop contended that defendants should not be made responsible for what water had been added by nature; they were not charged with the sale of milk below a certain standard, but with a sale of milk to which water had been added. Evidence was given by Professor T. H. Easterfiekl that he tested a sample of the Fresh Ifood Company's milk, and found that no water had been added to the natural product of the cow. To Mr. Os^er ; This analysis was made on the 14th Asegustj the milk was not sour. He did not know whether it had been preserved by formalin. The test was not made with a view of seeing whether the milk came up to the regulation under the Act, b«t merely with a view of ascertaining whether it had the properties that fresh milk shonld have. Mr. Ostler submitted that he should be entitled to call Dr. M'Laurin, who made an analysis of defendant's milk, to give rebutting evidence, and the Magistrate agreed. With a view to vais, the case was adjourned till Monday next. VENDOR CONVICTED. W. W. Crump, for whom Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh appeared, admitted a charge of having sold milk adulterated with water. Counsel explained, however, that defendant had to buy some milk to' meet an emergency, and this was the mHk complained of. Crump was unaware that it contained water. A conviction was entered, and a fine of 40s imposed, with orders to pay costs 7s, and analyst's fee 10s 6d, default being fixed at seven days' imprisonment. Later in the morning, when the case against the Fresh Food Company was concluding, Mr. Hindmarsh applied for a rehearing of Crump's case, as defendant, it appeared, had obtained the milk complained of from the Fresh Food Company. The Magistrate informed counsel he might put in a formal application in the usual way. The latter replied that the court's decision in the case against the Fresh Food Company would also determine the application.

Messrs. C. Smith, Ltd., advise the arrival nf a purchase of a large line of kid gloves which are being offered at bargain