ADULTERATED MILK

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9076, 22 June 1915, Page 8

ADULTERATED MILK

PROTECTING THE PUBLIC VENDORS MORALLY INNOCENT, YET LIABLE. Reserved judgment was given in tb-» Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Mr G. A. Cooper, S.M., on two case- c* ,truing the alleged sale of adultf.iaU-o ni.lk. Inspectors of the Health De -Si'-tment had proceeded against El'ei. Boyd (for whom Mr H. F. O’Leary ap peared), and Francis E. Green (repre sented by Mr A. W.’Blair). Mr V- n. Meredith appeared for the department. In each -of -tiie&e cases tho defendants were charged under section 12 of The Sale of FoodjS and Drugs Act, 1908, witti selling adulterated < milk without fully ' nforming the purchaser at the time of che sale of the nature of the ’adulteration. Ut was alleged that the milk was stale.) His Worship said it was admitted by counsel for the defence in each case that a sals of the milk had been made and that all the necessary provisions ot the Act with respect to the foundation of the charges had been complied with. In each case the otneer who purchased the mills stated that he could detect nothing wrong with it when passed into the bottles. The certificate of the Government Analyst, however, showed that the milk submitted to him for analysis was well above the standard in butter fat and really good milk in every other respect, yet it was undoubtedly stale and of sufficient acidity to be unfit for human consumption ami dangerous for chitureu. His Worship had carefully considered several authorities bearing upon the ignorance of defendants, in similar cases regarding the state of the milk, and ho could come to no other condo sion but that these decisions clearly established that, though the defendants '.night be morally innocent and had. lain cans of protecting themselves or knowing that the milk had become sour, jet they were liable, and if the milk iva= impure through being stale then it was an offence to sell it. The Act was passed for tho prelection' of the public, and ■ for that purpose was no doubt drastic in its measures, and its provisions might in some cases possibly impose hardship, hut it was quite clear to His Worship's mind that tho intention of the Legislature was that anyone who sold mdk should be absolutely responsible for the state in which it reached the purchaser and the absence of mens rea could not be put forward as a defence. In the case against Green, he admittedly did not give any information as to the condition of the milk at the time it was purchased by the inspector, and he . must therefore be convicted of the offence charged. Defendant would be fined <£2 and costs A 1 18s.

In Miss Boyd’s case, however, the evidence disclosed that, after the inspector purchased the sample he was immediately -informed that it was not fresh, bu! the previous day’s milk. _ : The charge was for selling milk “which was not a fresh secretion from the cow.” But Miss Boyd at the time of purchase informed the inspector that the milk was not fresh. The information against her would, therefore, bo dismissed. .