DEFICIENT MILK

Evening Star, Issue 19126, 18 December 1925, Page 1

DEFICIENT MILK

CHARGES AGAINST TACEHt DAIRYHEK

HEAVY PENALTIES IMPOSES

Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., was 6R« gaged for some, time this morning in hearing charges against several Taien farmers of having sold milk deficient in milk solids. Mr IB B. Adams prosecuted on behalf of the Health Department.

George Stevenson (Mr J. B. Callao) pleaded guilty to two charges of having sold milk containing a deficiency in milk solids.

Mr Adams said that there was no doubt that water had been added to the milk. The case was one hi which a test had boon made of milk that had been supplied hi the hospital by another department. Mr Callan said that the deficiency of milk solids was admitted. The milk contained more than the proportion of milk fat that was required by the regulations. Regarding the presence of added water, counsel said that the water remained in the pipes after cleansing operations. The pipes did not have sufficient fall in them. The milk must have been very good but for the accidental addition of water. Tho defendant had boon in the milk business for many years, and there had not been any complaints previously. Ha did not think that the prosecution believed that the offence was a wilful one.

Mr Adams said that ho had no reason to doubt the bona tides of the defendant’s explanation. The Magistrate said that when a man was selling milk ho had to take every precaution against, the addition of water. He inflicted a penalty of £lO, stating I,hat if was not a case for a nominal fine. The defendant was also ordered to pay court costs (10s), analyst’s Ice (10s Gd), and solicitor's fee (£3 3s). On the second charge he was ordered to pay analyst's lee and court costs. A SMALL DEFICIENCY. Frank Glover also pleaded guilty to a similar charge of having sold milk containing less than 8 5-10 parts per cent, of milk solids, other than milk fat. Tito defendant was represented by Mr H. Bras,eh. Mr Brasch said that it was simply shown by the analysis that there was * small deficiency in milk solids. The defendant would swear that no water was added to-the milk. It was quits possible that the solids were deficient, but there could be no suggestion that water had been added. He quoted * statement made hv Mr Wyvcrn Wilson, 8.M., who pointed out that it was dangerous to convict merely because there was a dificiency in milk solids. Counsel added that the defendant had. only been in the milk business for eight months. The magistrate inflicted a fine of £lO, court costs IDs, analyst’s fo.o 10s 6df and solicitor’s foe £3 3s. ANOTHER CONVICTION. Potei L. Brown, represented by Mr Lemon, was charged with having sold mtlK voniaining .-ki.-'s tl.au -U I'.'tV'U pW ccit. of milk fat. Mr Adams said that five samples ban been taken, four of them showing a satisfactory percentage ol milk I at, but t.he fifth had not been up to standard. Mr Lemon said that the cows Bad been innoculaicd vith vaccine for mammitis, and he considered that tins had been responsible for the (rouble. The, Magistrate said Iha I he could not treat the case differently from the others, and in Hided a fine ol £lO. with ]()-, court eosls. Ills (id analysts foe, and £3 3s solicitor's too. SUPPLIERS CHARGED. Colin Mow at and Leonard Mowat were charged witn selling milk containing less ilian 8 5-10 parts per centum of milk solids other than milk fat, and also containing < per cent, of added water. Mr Adams said that Mowat Bros.

Adams said tli;if, Alowat Tiros, wen.; ilie iiiluid suppliers of milk to the hospital, the milk bain;; obtained from tlie oilier defendants. He, understood that the present defendants did nut, actually produce niiy milk them* selves. However, they were responsible if they sold the milk, though there was a moral diilerencc between them slid the actual suppliers. Kviilcnce was 'riven by Inspector Goodins as to bavin;; purchased a sample of milk at the hospital from Colin Mow at, one of the defendant* Mr Sinclair said that it. was obvious that if there had been any adulteration the defendants had not been a parly to it. If there bad been odul J T.eralion it must have taken placo whilst it w:ts in the possession of the suppliers. Mr Adams said that the prosecution did mu: dispute that. Continuing. Mr Sinclair said that evidence would ha hrouuhi to show that the defendants took all possible Miciis to see that the milk was satisfactory. Samcles were frequently taken to t he" Waitaki Hairy Company, where tests were made as to the hotter-fat content A fairly broad view had to ha taken of the matter if the defendants had taken everv reasonable care. Ha submitted that the analysis that_ had beer, made did mu, conform to either Jiritish or New Zealand law, ns the constituent parts of Hie sample had not been set out on the. certificate.

(IViicri/diii".)