ADULTERATED MILK

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11252, 3 July 1922, Page 4

ADULTERATED MILK

MUCH BELOW STANDARD DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES PROSECUTED AND FINED. “THE PUBLIC SUFFER.” Before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., the Wellington Milk Vendors’ Association, Ltd., was charged with selling adulterated milk. Three offences were alleged. The facte as stated hy Sub-Inspector McNamara were that on April 7tli and 13ih last, and 4t'h May, three samples of the company’s milk had been taken by the inspector. The deficiencies in the milk in pats had been revealed by analysis as 18.5, 32.3, and 10.8. These samples had been taken upon three separate days, as would be seen from the charge sheet. Other samples taken on the same day had been up to the standard. Mr O. O. Mazengarb, for the defendants, drew attention to the company’s excellent record. Only one breach of the Aot had been recorded against them. On that ocoasion Mr E. Page, S.M., had held that in a ease of this kind the company should be warned merely, and no penalty was inflicted. No further trouble had arisen in this direction; tile only other time that the company .had been hefove the court was when one of the employees had used a dirty can by mistake. 'His Worship: Well, that’s twice before the court anyway. Counsel continued' to state that the oompany was going out of existence m a few days. It was a difficult thing to get employees to comply with instructions, as His Worship would know. Directions that the milk was to l>e agitated with the plunger supplied had been issued to each driver. Although three charges were laid, two employees, only, were concerned. When the previous case had come before the court the employees had been warned, and when one of them was detected of negligenoe in this matter for the second time he had been dismissed immediately. “And here we have a peculiar spectacle,” said counsel, “this man who was not quite good enough for the company, and was discharged for failing in his duty, was immediately taken on by the City Corporation.” “I submit that no good purpose would be served by inflicting a penalty,” said counsel finally. “The country might make a little, ‘‘ was the answer of the Bench. Counsel: But that, Tour Worship, is not the purpose of the Act. His Warship: No, the purposo of the Act is to protect the public from these people who don’t see that their men do their duty. Mr MoNamara : There is over 33 per cent, deficiency in one case, sir. His Worship: Yes, the public suffer. A penalty of 40s and costs on each charge was inflicted. ANOTHER CASE. In a following case the Municipal Milk Distributing Co. (Mr N. Johnson) admitted a similar offence. A fine of 4Os and costs was inflicted.