DAIRYING PROSECUTIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13325, 3 November 1906, Page 7

DAIRYING PROSECUTIONS.

KEEPING A DISEASED COW. FINE OF £20 AND COSTS. At the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. I R. W. Dyer, S.M., James D. Cooney was ; charged with failing to keep his dairy at Mangere cleansed and in a sanitary condii tion, to the satisfaction of the dairy in- ; spector. He was further charged with j failing to notify the dairy inspector that a I cow belonging to him appeared to be suf- ! fering from a disease of such a nature i that it tended to have an injurious effect ! upon the milk. Mr. Selwyn Mays conducted the prosecution, and Mr. C. J. Tunks the defence. Mr. Tanks said that his client admitted the first charge, but denied the second. i William R. Brown, dairy inspector, ; said the defendant owned a Jersey cow, which had attracted witness' attention by : a very bad cough. He spoke to Cooney about it, and he had explained that he had discussed the matter with his son, and they intended taking the animal down to I some scrub, and shooting it. The cow j was very much affected with tuberculosis. Its market value was about 15s. Mi-. Mays: And they were milking her with others. To Mr. Tanks: He could not say that I the milk was being used for human con- ' sumption. Henry Brittain, stock inspector, said that he had examined the cow, and found it , suffering very badly from tuberculosis, The defendant explained that he did not think it necessary to give the inspector : notice of his cow's complaint. ! Francis Edward Cooney, a son, gave evi- : dence as to the cow having been isolated. He drew the inspector's attention to her. To Mr. Dyer: The milk was not used. His Worship said he would have to impose a fine which would act as a deterrent, not only to the defendant, but other people. On the first charge defendant was fined £5. and £1 8s costs, and on the second, £20, and £1 7s 6d costs. "Of course," said Mr. Dyer, " there is a much heavier penalty, and if £20 won't stop it, perhaps £50 will." . A TEST CASE. DISEASE MUST BE APPARENT. Thomas W. Discombe, defended by Mr. J. C. Martin, denied having, on September 25, at Otahuhu, mixed with milk produced for sale the milk of a diseased cow. He also denied having failed to notify the dairy inspector of a cow appearing to be suffering from a disease tending to injuriously affect the milk. Mr. S. Mays, who prosecuted, said that Mr. Brown, dairy inspector, had inspected the cow from an external point of view, and found a large swelling, about the size of an ostrich's egg, at the hack of its udder. Mr. Dyer: What was the growth? Mr. Mays A tuberculous tumour. William Robert Brown, dairy inspector, said that he visited the defendant's herd, and saw the cow in question. When defendant's attention was drawn to-it, lie replied that he had only noticed it two days previously. To Mr. Martin: The defendant had a large herd of cows, and never gave any trouble. Occasionally surprise visits were paid. Mr. Martin: Did you see the cow after she was milked'.' ■ Witness: Yes. ■■ „ Mr. Martin: Did you seize the milk? Witness: No. • Mr. Martin:- You- knew- the cow had been milked? Witness: Yes. Mr. Martin : Why didn't you condemn the milk? Witness: I merely inspected the cow. In reply to Mr. Dyer, witness said that i he did not condemn the milk because he I was not clear in his own mind on the ; point. Francis Henry Brittain, stock inspector, said he thought the growth was from two to four months old, and must have been visible for some time. The cow was suffering from tuberculosis. For the defence Mr.' Martin contended that the Act said that the disease must appear to the owner. He was then to report it. In this case it had not appeared to the owner. Defendant stated that he had noticed the swelling two days before the inspector came. He thought" the cow had been "horni ed," as is often the case, and that the swelI ling would only be temporary. He had ! often seen similar lumps, and they had soon I disappeared. He had not noticed the cow j before as he did not milk it. He was a married man with children and they partook of the milk. Mr. Martin: It is not likely that you would bring tuberculosis on "your wife, children, and yourself. His Worship agreed with Mr. Martin that the Act implied that the disease had to appear to the owner. The defendant had a ; perfectly clean sheet, and it was not likely j that if he had a cow suffering from disease he would have tried to hide the matter, because of his reputation, which in his own interests he would try to keep up. Brown had been perfectly fair in his evidence. He said he had only been suspicious. His Worship was of opinion that he could not convict, and Mr. Mays informed him that the case was a. lest one, ana the second information would be withdrawn. This was done and the first information was dismissed. UNREGISTERED DAIRIES. Michael Doyle denied having sold milk from his unregistered dairy at Otahuhu to Thomas Burgess on September 24. Thomas Burgess was called by Mi". Mays, who prosecuted, but said that the defendant had never sold any milk to him since Aprillast, but had given him a pint per day. If Doyle were to get his dairy licensed, and ask payi ment for the milk supplied from April to | the day of the registration of his dairy, he | would par him. Mr. Dyer said he could I not record a conviction, but thought Ibat ! Burgess and Doyle had been discussing the , situation. The case would be dismissed. . Burgess claimed costs, but they were re- : fused. j Edward West, another Otahuhu resident. ! admitted selling milk from his unregistered 1 dairy to Charles Henuis. Mr. Mays said ; there was no excuse for the defendant, who j must have known the Act. Defendant was j fined £5. ;<"cl costs £1 7« 6d. j Sarah Holt admitted selling milk to j Richardson Fallwell at Otahuhu on Septemj ber 24, her dairy not being registered. Mr. Mnvs asked for merely a nominal penalty, as it w»s not a bad case. The defendant was fined £1, and £1 10s costs.