MILK AND WATER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10686, 4 September 1920, Page 7

MILK AND WATER

ADULTERATION ALLEGED VENDOR APPEARS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE. VARYING EXCUSES. Rather serious charges concerning milk were preferred against T. Leighton, a dairyman at Johnsonville, before Mr J- S. Evans, S.M., yesterday. The charges were that on June 14th last the defendant did sell milk containing added water, and as a result oi alleged adulteration another charge was laid for selling milk, deficient an milk solids. B. S. Reid, an inspector of Public Health, said that, as a result of complaints received he went to- take samples of milk purveyed by the defendant, and on occosting him the defendant said that he had had an accident that morning, inasmuch as he had' accidentally spilt some water into- a can of milk while it was going through the process of 'cooling," and that ne informed the inspector that the particular milk in question was not for Bale. The inspector said that the defendant had offered him £5 when he was accosted by the inspector on his (defendant's) cart. He further stated that defendant -had a can of "milky water" on his cart when accosted, and n-hen the inspector requested him to throw it out, ho did so, but intimated that of course it was not cm iis cart for sale. '

Defendant stated precisely how one particular can'" of milk had become adulterated, and explained that in tipping a can of water in the "cooling" trough, the rush of water caused one can of milk to become mixed with some water. He immediately put tho can of adulterated milk aside, purely for the purpose of giving it away, and had already made numerous gratis distributions when he was accosted by the inspector. Tho defendant further stated that he had been making a speciality of selling milk for babies, and claimed io have a better supply than any other vendor in town, and ciffphatically <lv~ nied producing a £5 note. The hearing of the evidence "■ occupied the major portion «t tno afternoon, and a, host of witnesses for the defence were called. His Worship said he thought it was clear that the defendant had told the inspector that the milk was not for sale, but it was a very, suspicious circumstances' that a man should offer money. In conclusion His Worship said he proposed to dismiss the information on tho charge of tho milk being de--Bcient in milk solids, and in regard to the alleged adulterated milk he would reserve hia decision.' NO "PLUNGER.'^ CART EQUIPMENT. INCOMPLETE. Another charge of a. somewhat different nature was also heard, and a plea of guilty was entered by the No. I Municipal Mjlk Distributing Company, when charged with, selling tajik that was deficient in milk solids. The result of the analysis showed 2.8 per cent. of milk solids, whereas the standard required by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act wan 3.25. As >cx« planation defendant said the cans were left to-be collected by the driver who, ion that "occasion had no ''plunger" with which to "agitate" the milk. Consequently the first to receive their milk got a much higher standard the later people. His Worship said he though* that the onus was practically on the driver; more so, in fact than the , defendant, 'but being the owner of the business;I he should make sure that a • 'plunger'" was carried by the driver. He therefore, inflicted a fine of 20s and 7s Mr J Prcndeville appeared for the informant, and Mr T. Neave for the defendant in, each case. .