MILK PROSECUTIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8734, 16 May 1914, Page 8

MILK PROSECUTIONS

ALLEGED ADULTERATION FAILURE OF CASE FOR THE DEPARTMENT. At the Magistrate’s Cetirt yesterday, before Mr D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., Frederick Bottle was charged with refusing to sell milk on March 2(>rh, at Wellington, to an officer under the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr M. Myers. John Henry Cowdrey, a departmental inspector, stated that lie accosted the defendant driving William Inciedon’s cart, and asked for twopence worth of milk. Defendant was in the act of getting the milk out of a container, when witness noticed another container partly hidden hy a jacket. He asked that the milk bo drawn from that container, and was informed that the milk in that particular can was not for eale, but that he could have milk out of any of the other cans. Witness declined. The reason defendant gave for not selling the milk was that it was sour. Witness did not ask for a “taste” of the milk to see if defendant was tolling the truth. The defendant said that ho had not sold any milk out of the email can, which was one of his own. He had the previous day left it at a Mrs Jamieson’s shop, and had picked it up that morning. Ho knew the milk was sour, because it had been left standing in an enclosed can. from the previous day. Mrs Japiicson said that very often on the second found the milk was “left over.” When this was so, it was loft in a can for the milkman to take away in the morning. The condition of such milk in the morning would ha what was loiown as “stale.” Mr Myers contended that the information must ho dismissed. The defendant had been perfectly frank with the inspector. He had explained that the milk in tho particular can was not for sale, hut that he would sell milk from any other can. How could it bo said that Bottle had brought himself within section 5 of tho Act, which only repaired him to give to the inspector milk that he had for sale? The inspector, also, was wrong in not obtaining samples from the other cans for the purpose* of analysis. His Worship upheld counsel’s contention, stating that the defendant had proved to his satisfaction that the milk was not for sale. The information would ho dismissed. OTHER CASES.

It was alleged against William Inclodon that he sold to Walter Arch milk containing added water and annato, the addition of which was prohibited; further, that he sold adulterated milk without informing the purchaser of the nature of the adulteration.- The defendant was also charged with similar offences J —four in all —in respect of the alleged sale of milk to Ivy Murray and Emily Jamieson, respectively. Mr M. Myers appeared for the defence. The information in respect of the sales to Ivy Murray was heard first. Inspector Cowdrey said that on March 20th at 6.45 a.m. lie went to Mrs Murray’s place in Daniel street, and took charge of a can of milk which he found hanging on the door. He then divided the milk into three parts for the purpose of analysis. He put iu the Dominion Anulysist’s report on the milk. The addition of annato, would give the milk /a rich creamy colonr. Mrs Murray did not ask that the milk be sampled. Witness laid the information, and not Mrs Murray. Albert Bottle, dairyman, in the employ of the defendant, said he supplied Mrs Murray with milk that morning. It was not from the server which had formed the subject of the previous prosecution. Emma Murray said that she dcd not think water was in the vessel she left out for the m*rning’s milk, The inspector took away the whole vessel of milk, leaving about half a.pint to go on with, for the breakfast. He might have put anything he liked into the milk he took away. It was contended for the defence that the information must fail under subsection 1 of section 12, which says that every person commits an offence who sells any adulterated food or adulterated drug without fully informing the purchaser at the time of the sale of the nature of adulteration.

Sub-Inspector Sheehan drew His Worship’s attention to subsection 4, which says that every person commits an offence who sells aoiy food or drug containing a greater proportion of any substance than is permuted by regulations made under the authority of the Act. Mr Myers contended that the prosecution could not succeed, because it had given no evidence as to what the article was, which was contracted to be sold. In any case, the milk was sold, not to an inspector, but to a customer. > 'The Magistrate said he was disposed to favour the point raised by Mr Myers. The information would he dismissed, and if tho Crown thought fit it could appeal. The sub-i inspector then asked for an adjournment of the remaining cases. To this Mr Myers agreed, providing the cases were adjourned sine die. This course was agreed upon.