DAIRYMEN ARRAIGNED.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8180, 23 July 1912, Page 1

DAIRYMEN ARRAIGNED.

ADULTERATION CHARGES FIXES INFLICTED OX TWO MILK VENDORS. Several cases of alleged adulteration of milk came before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Charles John Duffy was charged with selling milk containing boron compound (a preservative); James F. Jepson watered milk, which .contained boron *“compound; and the iVutricia Milk Company and Frederick Pethe'rick watered milk. All the 'defendants were charged with failing to notify the purchaser of the presence of the alleged adulterations. Evidence was given by Mr C. A. Schauer, an .inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, that on June 6th he’ purchased from Mrs Jepson, wife of James Jepson, one pint of milk. There was none in the servingcan, but she agitated the milk in a five-gallon can, which, she said, had just been delivered by the Fresh Food lind Ice Company, and from this gave him the sample. The milk was analysed, by the Dominion Analyst, and was found to contain water and preservative.

. In reply to Mr M. Myers, counsel' for Jepson, witness stated tliat he paid twopence for the milk. Under subsequent cross-examination ho stated that he tendered a shilling, but- did ■ not receive change, as Airs Jepson stated that she would have to go upstairs for it. He had made a mistake when he stated that .he had paid- twopence. Air Myers : Do you remember having any conversation with Mrs Jepson about the milk of other people which you had examined ?—No. Do you .remember telling her that the Nutricia Company had been warned several times?—No,--L'don’t remember it. ■ ,; ‘ ■ ! •

i If she says , you-did, would you’.deny it?—No. ' ' _ • Do you think that it is proper. for you, a public health‘dffioer, - to bo going from one . place •to ; another tolling people what, happened; to other people in tcyvn?—l don’t remember doing-so. Mr Myers" submitted that-the information should be dismissed on- the giound that there'had been no tender of the’'current,marketvalue ofthe sample, takeni' : as provided by the Act. The tender of one shilling when change was required was 'hot ’ the “tender of twopence. ■ ■,. Decision in this case was reserved?• AN UNSATISFACTORY .CASE,*'

r lit the' case :of 'the Company. Mr Schauer stated that the sum of twopence was actually paid for a pint of milk, -which was'reported by the Dominion Analyst to contain water. The milk ~was .. .purchased from Mrs Burke, at -the defendant ■ company’s shop in .the northern end of the city. > To Mr Myers- (the defendant company’s'couhiiel):']? purchased, the milk from' Mrs Burke, I swear 'that. There is no mistake;- •' -

Mr Myers ; Wliat time of the . day was it? I hope there is no misunderstanding about; this. ’’ Mr Schauer: examined J;he bottle in wliich was -a , portion of the, sample bought, add" then found that ‘he had purchased the milk at 11 o’clock one morning ‘from" Miss Alice Burke," and not Mrs Burke.

Being further cross-examined, witness stated that he did'hot remember having seen the can out of .which the milk was taken. Mo thought Miss Burke used a. one-pint /measure to .get ; the milk out of the can. Mr Myers: Did . you look at the measure-to see that it was .clean?— No,' She was in charge of the shop. 'Did you ( take any; .steps to see that it was-a sample fairly taken?—l don’t know' that.! did, . '-L don’t remember taking any steps other than asking for a .pint of .’.milk.',-What 1 wanted was what'was given, the public. I told M iss Burke that J-wanted tho milk for analysis under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. If Miss Burke says that you did not tell her that.you wanted this milk for analysis, will you say that sho.is not telling the truth ?—I will. _ i When „ giving her evidence , Miss, B*urke denied that Mr Schauer said what purpose,he wanted tho milk for. Mr Myers submitted that his Worship could not accept the evidence of Mr Schauer, who had already made several‘ mistakes. “'lt makes me wonder,” remarked counsel, “ when I hear a Government officer make a positive statement in the box how many people have been brought before this court by tlm Public Health Department and have been convicted through the fault of the\ witnessi and through the fact th'at they have not been defended by counsel.” !

■ Mr ’Riddell sa iH the matter was so unsatisfactory that the information must bo dismissed.

'‘-The 'Public'.Health Department,” declared Mr Myers, “has been saved on this occasion a .criticism which would have been scathing and severe.” - GO ,TO THE FARMER.

After the.’ midday adjournment Mr H. H. Ostler conducted the cases for department. Sub-Inspector Sheehan had been prosecuting in the morning.

Dr Maclaurin, Dominion Analyst, testified that one of his officers (Mr Donovan) had analysed the sample taken from Duffy’s premises in Tinakori road. This milk contained preservative.

Mr E. K. Kirkcaldie, wlio appeared for defendant, contended that the information should be dismissed. The analysis ywas not carried out by Dr Maclaurin, although he signed the certificate regarding the contents of the milk. There was. no proof how the certificate "got,, into Dr Maclaurin’s hands, and there was ho proof that Mr Donovan;was an analyst appointed under the Act. Duffy said, that he had tested the milk, some of which was obtained from the Fresh Food nnd'leo Company' and some from. the. Riverside Dairy Corn-

pauy, for water, but could find no traces of any. There whs no necessity to put preservative in .milk at this time of the year, for good milk would keep for three or four days. His 'Worship held that a conviction must be entered. Defendant had taken certain steps to see that the .milk was not adulterated, and that fact must bo taken into consideration.

Duffy was fined £2, with costs £2 Os 6d. The second information of failing to notify the purchaser was withdrawn.

Heave to appeal was granted. Mr H. S. Machell, who represented defendant Petherick, submitted that the Government, "in cases of the kind under notice, should ,go to the fountain head of the trouble—thie farmer, in whose hands tho dairymen' wore. Petherick was fined, £-S, with costs, £2 Os 6d. Tho second charge was withdrawn, '