MILK FOR ANALYSIS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19119, 10 September 1925, Page 13

MILK FOR ANALYSIS.

SAMPLE NOT SUPPLIED. dregs reveal added water. COURT RESERVES DECISION. Charges of having in his possession for sale milk that -was adulterated, refusing tn give a sample to a Health Department inspector, and obstructing an inspector in the execution of his duty, were preferred against Thomas O'Neil, dairy farmer, New Lynn, in the Police Court, yesterday, before Mr. E. C Cutten, S.M. An inspector of the Health Department stated ho visited defendant's dairy at dusk on July 20, and found thero a tengallon can and a kerosene tin of milk. On going to the house and asking for a sample of milk he was told to get it for himself. Re turning to the dairy he found Edward Armstrong, a milk vendor, and an assistant, about to pick up the milk. He sent for a constable, and returned to the house, leaving Armstrong and his assistant to watch the dairy. On going back to the dairy he found the milk had been tipped out, leaving some dregs, which he put in a bottle lor analysis. The analysis of the sample showed 21 per cent, of added water.

Defendant, in evidence, said that when he milked the cows on the night in question he found that one had a bruised udder, and there was clotted blood in the milk. Consequently he turned out all the milk on the grass. A neighbour came for milk, and on being told thero was just a little left in the tin said he would add water to make enough for himself. When the inspector called he was told there was no milk. A neighbour gave corroborative evidence regarding the adding of water to the milk. Mr. S. Wilson, for defendant, argued that he did not have adulterated milk in his possession for sale. The magistrate stated the whole matter depended on the truth of the evidence on e.'ther side. He reserved his decision to consider the effect of defendant's refusal to supply a sample.