ADULTERATED MILK

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 214, 24 August 1927, Page 5

ADULTERATED MILK

VENDOR FINED £7. At the Hastings Court this morning, -before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., Benjamin W. Davies, milk vendor, was charged with on June 27th selling milk to Phillip A. Milne, Inspector under tho Food and Drugs Act, without complying with the standard required under the Act. Mr. E. J. W. Hallett, acting for the defendant, pleaded guilty. The inspector said he bought the milk from the deefndant at 6.45 a.m. The analyst’s report showed that there was 9 per cent, of added water, besides a small deficiency in solids.

In reply to Mr. Hallett, the inspector said the defiiciency in solids was only 4 per cent. The inspector also said that the defendant purchaser his supplies from another man, and on the morning in question, he (the inspector) took samples of milk from otheY vendors who received their supplies from the same sauce, but he found them all right. Mr. Hallett, for the defence, said that at the early hour that- the sample was taken the defendant had not received his milk supply. There had been a gallon of milk left over in his house from the previous day’s supply, and he had only six pints of milk in his cart at the time, so that it was not part of that morning’s supply! Ho explained that the defendant’s wife was away, and he was absent on his farm when the gallon of milk was in the house awaiting some customers of his to take their supplies as usual. He heard that some children had been about the place, and the only explanation ,he could suggest was that the milk had been tampered with by the children.

His Worship said the fact remained that the mill; was sold to the inspector. It was no excause to say it was tampered with. Mr. Hallett admitted that it was no excuse. The defendant’s? milk had been taken many times before, but no fault could be found.

His Worship: I would not consider at all serious the fact of there being a slight deficiency in solids, but ninv per cent, of added water shows that some one has been selling water, when it was his duty to sell milk and not water, so that is the only one who can be held responsible. The defendant was fined £7, and costs 20/6.