THE MILK WE DRINK

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 71, 20 September 1912, Page 8

THE MILK WE DRINK

CHARGES OF WATERING. DEALERS FINED. For selling milk to which water had been added and failing to inform tho purchaser of the fact, Christine Morris (for whom Mr. Meredith appeared) was lined to-day, by Mr. W. G. Riddell^ S.M., 40s, with JtJl 185 6d costs, Ada Jamie* yon (Mr. Levvey) 20s, with £1 18 a6d costs, and Staveley and Weight 20s, with £1 18s 6d. CASE AGAINST NUTRICIA COMPANY. Three similar charges were preferred against the Nutricia Milk Company, for which Mr. M. Myers appeared. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted on behalf of the Public Health Department. Mr. Ostler ' said that on the 9th August two samples of milk were obtained from the company's servants, and one on the 10th August. On analysis it, was -found that in two of the samples 10 per cent, of water had been added, and in one -8 per cent. Carl Albert Schauer, an inspector under the Public Health Act, gave evidence that on the 9th August he purchased at the company's shop in Moles-worth-street a pint of milk. He informed the attendant that the milk was required for the purpose of submitting it to analysis. Later in the day he obtained a sample from the company's Brooklyn depot, and on the following day he obtained another sample from one Of the company's delivery carts in Riddiford-strcet. To Mr. Myers : He did not make fish of one milk supplier and flesh of another in obtaining samples of milk for analysis. It was a fact that the Nutricia, Company had recently successfully defended a case brought against it by the Department. ' Mr. Myers said that it had been lftid down that milk supplied to the public should be of a certain standard, and the defendant ebmpanv had adopted a higher standard than this, and in doing so thought it was doing all that was reasonable in making sure of supplying pure milk. It had, in his opinion, adopted every reasonable precaution to this end. j (Proceeding.) j