SALE OF FOOD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16742, 24 December 1914, Page 8

SALE OF FOOD.

A MILK CASE. IMPORTANT DECISION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, December 23. The Chief Justice to-day delivered reserved judgment in the case of the Crown v. William Incledon. This was an appeal against- a decision in the Magistrate’s Court, and the question in dispute was a point of law in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908. The defendant in the lower Court was charged with selling milk containing water and annato. This latter substance gives milk a rich and creamy appearance, and is prohibited by regulation under the Act-. The defence was that there should be no conviction unless the sample of tlio milk on which tho prosecution was based was divided into threo parts and one was handed to the vendor; The Magistrate upheld this point raised by Mr Myers, who appeared for lucledon, notwithstanding the contention of Mr Macassey (for the Health Department) that the condition only applied when milk wnsj taken tor analysis and not when it was purchased for human consumption. At the Mr Myers also submitted that tho information should bo laid by the purchaser and not by. an officer under the Act. Air Macassey contended that information could be laid by a common informer and a fortiori by an officer under the Act. In his decision his Honor upheld both Mr Macassey’s points and allowed the appeal. He said that the appellants had not proceeded under sections 4, 5. 7 and 8 of the Act. By these sections an officer had authority to seize unwholesome or deleterious food or to purchase- food for analysis. The appellant had purchased a sample of milk and proceeded as the Act provided. His Honor was of opinion that, any person could lay an information and that iu cases where an officer or other person was uot proceeding under a special section of the Act "it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of these sections. It would, he continued. impede the usefulness of the Act if no prosecution could be successful unless the provisions of section 7 (concerning tlic division of the sample into three parts) were followed. Adulterated food could bo sold wholesale if the contentions of the respondent were, correct, and the conviction of the seller would become impossible. The case was accordingly sent back to tho Magistrate’s Court with tho Supreme Court’s decision. Owing to its novelty no costs were allowed. The judgment is likely to have farreaching effects in cases of prosecutions for milk adulteration.