SAMPLE OF MILK

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 79, 30 September 1938, Page 16

SAMPLE OF MILK

INSPECTOR OBSTRUCTED

ROUNDSMAN FINED

The position held by milk inspectors and the co-operation due to them was stressed by Mr. A. M. Goulding, S M at the conclusion of a case m the Magistrate's Court today. Cyril Wood, a milk roundsman, who was represented by Mr. R. Hardie Boys, faced two charges of obstructing Frederick William Rawlinson, milk inspector. Mr. W. H. Cunningham, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution. "One must remember/' said Mr. Goulding, "that these inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act are, more or less public officers appointed for the protection of the public, and I have no hesitation in accepting the story of the inspector as to what occurred on this occasion. However assiduous the inspector may be in carrying out his duties, I think it is the duty of the man from whom ths sample of milk is being taken to render whatever assistance he can to the inspector." The defendant, who was driving a milk lorry, was accosted by the inspector in Vivian Street at 5.45 a.m. on August 12, said Mr. Cunningham, and the inspector indicated that he wanted to take a sample of the milk. He inspected the cans in the van, and chose one about one-third full from which to take a sample. He was in the act of taking it when the defendant jumped on to the lorry and poured about a gallon of other milk into the can. The result was that he did not get a sample of the milk he intended to test,, but got a sample of the composite milk which resulted. An analysis disclosed that it answered to the minimum requirements of the law, although it was the lowest of six samples taken that morning. Evidence along these lines was given by the inspector. The defendant gave no explanation for his actions, he said, and became very abusive. To Mr. Hardie Boys he said that when he called at the car first he demanded a sample of milk. At that point of time Wood had certain cans on the footpath. He did not expect Wood to stop his work as long as he did not interfere. Mr. Hardie Boys: Did you say to him, "Is that the watered stuff on the footpath?" Witness said that he made some joking remark about the good stuff being on the footpath. He said he knocked the can aside while the defendant was pouring in the milk. The can was tipped up, and some of the milk was spilled out. He denied saying, "How can I get a crook sample?" "DICTATORIAL ATTITUDE." Mr. Hardie Boys submitted that there was no element of obstruction, and quoted several cases in support of his contention. He asked the Court to take note of the inspector's "dictatorial attitude." The defendant, from the witness-box, said that when the inspector came up he had just put two cans on the roadside. The inspector looked at the cans, and said, "What's this —the watered milk?" He said, "No, it is for you to take a sample from, if you wish to." The defendant got back on the lorry. The inspector was taking the lid off the server, and was preparing to take a sample from the server on the tail of the lorry. The defendant was filling a five-gallon can for the Balmoral Hotel with about three gallons in it when the inspector sprang up and knocked the can away. The inspector said, "How do you think I can get crook samples?" and the defendant said that the milk was there if he wanted it. He had no intention of preventing the inspector from taking samples. Questioned by Mr. Cunningham, the defendant denied that the inspector had used an agitator in the can, and' also that the inspector had a half-pint measure when he poured in the milk. "Why should you choose that moment to fill up a can for the Balmoral, which was quite a long way away?" asked Mr. Cunningham. The defendant said that he had to "get a move on" in the mornings and had to "go for his life." I No action could be more calculated to prevent the inspector from exercising his powers than pouring in the top milk of a can which might havebeen standing for some time, said Mr. Cunningham. That two-gallon can might have contained possibly the top milk from a larger can or, at any rate, if it had been standing, the top portion would have been comparatively rich milk. Wooct was convicted and fined £2 and costs on one of the charges, and the other was dismissed.