"WARRANTY"

New Zealand Times, Volume XLV, Issue 10431, 8 November 1919, Page 9

"WARRANTY"

DEFENCE Ui ftIILK CHARGES iPROSECUTION TX INTERESTING OASIS FAILS. By reason of a somewhat unusual dofenco in milk adulteration cases, considerable interest was manifested in prosecutions heard before the magistrate (Mr E. Page) yesterday. The defendants were Messrs Gorrio and Maher, and the charges against thciii svero that in July they sold miliy (1) v.hich contained b' per cent, of add-' cd water, and (2) which was deficient 111 J'ilt.S. Mr J. Prendeville, of the Crown Law Office, appeared to prosecute; Mr M. Myers appeared on behalf of defendants, and Mr W. J. McEUiowney watched the proceedings on behalf of the City Council. For the prosecution, it was alleged that, samples of milk were purchased from the defendants by Mr F. Rawlinson, milk inspector. It was found on analysis that the milk contained water, and was also remarkably deficient in butter-fat. It was suggested that water had been added to tho milk supplied to customers, and that the ether milk had been skimmed. Instead of containing the legal standard CS.L'i per cent.) of"butter-fat, the milk in question contained omy 1.5 per cent. Evidence to this effect "was Riven by Inspector Kawlinson (who said tho samples taken showed an exceptionally low* percentage), and Robert Leslie Andrew, Government Analyst. TROUBLE WITH SUPPLIERS. Samuel Shaw Steele, in charge of tho receiving department of tho municipal milk supply department, said that in J'uiy there had been trouble with seme of the suppliers for the reason that tho milk did not contain tho proportion of "solids nor fat" it should iiavo contained. Mr Myers: You mean that it was adulterated with water? Witness: Is'o; not necessarily. What does a deficiency of "solids nor fat" connote—does it not mean that the milk has been adulterated with water?—No, not at the present time. At on© period it was recognised us proving that milk had been adulterated with water, but at the present tinio it does not. Witness admitted that at the municipal depot they received milk with tho percentage of "solids not butter fat" as low as 5.2. Mr Myors: Exactly. You received this milk" and supplied it to tho defou dant, .who took it and supplied it to his customers. We claim that tho nulls you supplied to him was the same mill* as that examined by the inspector. To Mr Prendeville, witness said tho milk with low percentage of "solids not fat" was bulked with other mi'.k. *l'ho city was short of milk at the time, and milk was accepted at tho depot which, under other circumstances, would have been rejected. To Mr Myers: It was still possible that there was 6.S per cent, of added water in that particular milk. Mr Myers: Was it not a fact that, knowing the Featherston milk was not what it should bo (that it was deficient in butter-fat), you bulked it with the hotter quality milk?—That is so. Why was that done? —Because the city was very short of milk at tho time. Wo cc-uld not leave tho people ehort of milk, and, in addition, the vendors were clamouring for supplies of milk. Was not the Featherston milk (said to bo most deficient) kept over until after tho milk had been bulked?—No"; most of it was bulked with the rest. Was not a complaint made at the time by Williams (manager for Gorrio and Maher) that he was getting Featherston milk at that period?—l have no recollection. Mr Prendeville said it was a significant fact that thoro was .no evidence of water being in the other samples of milk tested that day—the only sample showing the particularly low percentage was that possessed by , defendants. ! "WARRANTY" PLEADED. For the defence, Mr Myers pleaded "warranty" in that by the bond entered into between the defendants and . the corporation the former were bound to take their milk from the municipal depot, while the corporation engaged to supply the defendants with milk equal to all legal standards. Counsel submitted that in this particular caso tho council had not kept its. bond, and that the defendant merely sold the milk in the same couditiou in which it waa received from tho council. Evidence was called in ' support of this contention. LNFOBMATION DISMISSED. Tho magistrate held that the do* fence was a good one. The defendants, it could bo said, relied on the warranty given by the council, that the milk supplied was equal to all the standards required by law. That, His Worsliip said, had not been done in the caso under notice. The council had had some difficulty in procuring supplies of milk at tho time, and it had been admitted that it had aocoptcd milk of 'inferior quality—which was of lower percentage. (3.8) of butter-fat than that actually sold by tho defendants, which was 3.1) per cent. Again, in solids other than fat the lowest quality received at the municipal depot was 3.2 per cent., while that retailed by defendants was 8.3. Counsel had maintained that defendants were forced into the position—they had to accept the council's milk, and tho council warranted the quality. His Worship said there was something in the contention of the -defendants that they had merely sold the milk as.it had been received; that they had committed no offence; and dismissed the information. Tho hearing of the second information was adjourned until next Monday.