CONDITION OF MILK

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 16, 18 July 1918, Page 8

CONDITION OF MILK

RESPONSIBILITY OF VENDOR.

His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered to-day the judgment of the Appeal Court in the case between the City Milk Supply, Ltd. (appellant) and F. W. Bawlinson, Inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act (respondent). This was an appeal in fact and law from the decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., who.fined the appellants for selling milk containing dirt. Two questions were raised: (1) Is Regulation 12, Sub-section 1, Part 11. of the Regulations under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908, made on 4th March, 1913, valid? (2) Has the appellant proved that it took all reasonable steps to ascertain that the sale of the article would not constitute an offence against the Act or against any regulation or order under the Act?

Their Honours held that the objection urged against the validity of the regulation, that no standard was fixed so far as the milk being clean "was concerned, could be sustained. They held that the regulation was valid, and that it had been violated by appellant selling milk as described in the evidence. The evidence showed that the milk sold to the respondent was not submitted to any proper test so far as cleanness was concerned ; it was tested to ascertain the quantity o£ milk fat, and as to there being water in the milk, but riot otherwise. It was, however, proved that the ■appellant's premises and receptacles for milk were kept scrupulously clean, and that the milk on receipt was passed through sieves and muslin strainers. The dirt possibly became added after the milk left the appellant's premises, either by wind carrying it or otherwise. The appellant in this case, however, had made no actual test to ascertain whether the milk was clean, and consequently it had brought itself within the 13th section. The court was therefore of opinion that the appeal must be dismissed, and costs were fixed at £5 ss.

At the hearing, Mr. M. MyeTS appeared for the appellant and Mr. J. Prendeville, of the Crown Law Office, for'the respondent.