ALLEGED MILK ADULTERATION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 144, 19 June 1915, Page 7

ALLEGED MILK ADULTERATION

FINES IMPOSED. A charge of selling milk adulterated with added water was preferred against Harold Francis Walker in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Defendant was represented by Mr. P. ,W. Jackson, and pleaded not guilty. The Crown was represented by Mr. V. E. Meredith. Inspector Cowdrey gave evidence that he took a sample of defendant's milk on 15th April. He pa-id 3d for it, and informed Mrs. Walker, from whom it was purchased, that it was for the purposes of analysis. For the defence, Mr. Jackson contended that if the defendant could prove to the Court's satisfaction that he took steps to ascertain whether the milk was fresh or otherwise, it was a legal defence under the Act. Defendant gave evidence and positively denied that he had tampered with the milk. He saw the person from whom he had originally purchased it, and asked him if he had tampered with it. The person admitted that the milk had been watered. His Worship said he must enter a conviction, but the penalty under the circumstances would be a light one. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed. Judgment was also given in the case against Donald Cook, charged similarly. The facts were practically identical with those' in the foregoing case. Defendant was convicted, and a like penalty was imposed. A remaining charge of selling adulterated milk without informing the purchaser of its condition was withdrawn.