WATER IN MILK GREYMOUTH PROSECUTIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 June 1943, Page 4

WATER IN MILK

GREYMOUTH PROSECUTIONS

At the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, this morning, before Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., Baty Bros. Ltd. were charged that on April 15, 1943. they did sell milk containing 16 pei cent, of added water, and also that on April 29 they sold milk containing 24 pei’ cent, of added water. Mr. W. D. Taylor represented defendants and entered formal pleas of not guilty. Mr. J. Linford (Inspector for the Health Department) stated that he purchased a sample of milk from Baty’s roundsman on April 15, anc the analyst found that the milk contained 16 per cent, of added water Again on April 29 he purchased e further sample, and this time the percentage of added water was 24 pei

CG To Mr. Taylor: He purchased both samples from the same roundsman in the same area. In the first case he took the sample about Thompson Street and on the second occasion about Murray Street. Mr. Taylor said that there was no actual defence. The firm had been operating for the past 30 or 40 years and had never been charged with such an offence before. In calling evidence he J would endeavour to satisfy the Magistrate that the principals of the firm were not gdilty of any deliberate breach. The Magistrate would understand the serious repercussions on the firm if such an offence had been deliberate. It was admitted that the milk came from Baty’s cows, but it was contended that the milk was not in that condition when it left the factory. When the first test revealed added water the management thought that there had been some carelessness on the part of the staff in putting a can containing water under the water cooler, but when the second test revealed such a large quantity it was concluded that the water must have been added by some unauthorised person or persons deliberately. Once the milk left the factory it was entirely beyond the control of the principals. He suggested that the Magistrate might inspect the factory to satisfy himself regarding the handling of the supply. The only place in which water could get into the milk between the cows and the delivery cart was the cooler, but the firm had satisfied themselves that there was no leak in the cooler and it could be seen that it had not been repaired. In the course of the 30 or 40 years of the firm’s operation the milk had been tested probably hundreds of times, but this was the first time added water had been found. Alfred Baty, one of the principals of the firm, stated that two milkingsheds were run by separate machines, one shed doing 45 to 50 cows and the other over 30 cows. The milk went through a pipe to 'the water cooler ,and then into the cans. The morning’s ‘milk came direct to town. The evening milk was locked up in a freezer until the next morning. Dixon, from whom the samples were purchased, had been with the firm only about a month at that time. Apart from some deliberate interference water could get into the milk only through a leaking cooler, and then it would be only about one or two per cent. If the 16 to 24 per cent, added water were general, it would be immediately obvious from the surplus. He blamed the staff on the first occasion as he thought they must have put cans containing water under the cooler. He could not account for the added water, except that it must have been added deliberately by some unauthorised person or persons. While delivering milk the roundsman would be away from the cart for periods up to 20 minutes.

Douglas Lynam said he had been employed for eight years by the firm. The milk on Dixon’s cart was the previous evening’s milk, kept in the cooler overnight. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness regarding the system adopted at the farm for handling the milk. The freezer was kept locked and the key held bv Mr. Baty. Recalled by the Magistrate, Baty said he had had no complaints regarding the milk on the round in question. If many customers had been supplied with milk containing so much added water complaints would have been expected. The Magistrate said he was quite •prepared to accept the evidence that the cooler was not responsible and he would concede that it was incredible that any milkman would water milk to such an extent. Such a policy would be suicidal. He agreed that there was a possibility that there had been unauthorised interference with the milk. At the same time there had been an offence and defendants were responsible for the milk until it was delivered to the customers. He was prepared to assume that the cause was similar on both occasions and that it was not due to any deliberate act of defendant’s. He noted that there had been a number of convictions previously, but none for this particular offence of milk containing added water. Defendants would be convicted and fined .£2. with costs 20/- and analyst’s fee 10/6 on each of the two charges.