SALE OF WATERED MILK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16966, 27 September 1918, Page 3

SALE OF WATERED MILK.

«t» TWO VENDORS FINED" £20 EACH. The sale of milk to which water had been added was the basis of charges against two milk vendors, heard in tho Police Court yesterday before Mr. E. D. Mosloy, S.M. George Cruickshank (Mr. Dickson), dairyman, Edendale Road, was charged that on July 24 and July 26 he sold milk containing 10 per cent, of added water, and Edward Lye (Mr. Lavery), dairyman, Dominion Road, was charged that, on July 26 he sold milk coiitaing 10.3 per cent, of added water. Both cases were heard together. Inspector P. Shenton said both defendants received their milk from the ono source. A sample taken from Cruickshank on July 24 contained 10 per cent, added water, while in samples trora Eye and others the milk was over the standard. . Two days later samples from both defendants were under the standard, while ! samples from otliera who received milk ' from the same company as defendants were over the standard. The defence was a denial that defendants or their employees had added any water to the milk, and a suggestion was made that the milk was tampered with either by employees of the company supplying it or by 6omo person when the nnik was left outside defendants' places of business. They also contended that the warrants they had from the company relieved them of liability. Evidence was given by a representative of the company as to the steps taken to test the milk when it was received from the farmers. The magistrate said the attack made on the company was not justified by the evidence, and he was satisfied it took every reasonable precaution. Until he was stopped by a higher authority he would not allow retailers to try to shelter behind a warranty. When the evidence showed that the retailer had tampered with the milk, or the milk had been tampered with while in his custody, he would hold the retailer liable. v Senior-Sergeant McNamara said Lye had been fined*£lo last year. Cruickshank had been fined three years ago, but on that occasion the person supplying him had also been fined. The magistrate said it was the duty of , every Court to see that the sale of food and drugs in their pure state was maintained. Each defendant would be fined £20 and 19s 6d costs.