ADDED WATER

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12251, 24 September 1925, Page 10

ADDED WATER

MILK VENDOR’S APPEAL SENTENCE REDUCED. Before His Honour Mr Justice Alpers, in the Supreme Court yesterday, an appeal was heard against a convic tion by Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., between Gordon St. Remain, milk vendor, of Wellington (appellant), and Frederick Wm. Rawlinson, inspector of the Health Department (respondent). The appeal arose out of a conviction by Mr F. IC. Hunt, S.M., made at Wellington bn July 24th, wherein the appellant was convicted and fined £SO on a charge of selling adulterated milk containing 78 per cent, o added water, and sentenced to one month’s iinpris onment on a further charge of selling milk containing 80 per cent, of addeu water.

In order that an appeal might he made the sentence of imprisonment was increased to a period of five weeks. Mr G. Toogood, representing the ap peilant, submitted that the conviction was against the evidence, and against the weight of evidence, and that it had not been proved that the milk in question was sold for human consumption or use. Also that the appellant did not sell milk within the meaning of the “Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and further that the sample taken by th« inspector had not been milk to which water had been added, but water to which milk had been added. Under the circumstances, in regard to the second charge especially, the penalty imposed by the magistrate had been much too severe.

Mr I’. S. K. Macassey appeared on behalf of the respondent. OFFENCES WILFULLY COMMITTED

His Honour, after the hearing of the evidence, in giving his decision, said that he was satisfied that the offences alleged had been actually committed, and that they had been wilfullv committed in the fact that St. Remain must have known the milk to have contained water. The analyst’s certificate showed that the sample taken by the inspector contained four parts of water to one of milk. However, lie was inclined to believe that the magistrate had made the mistake of assuming that the appellant intended soiling the milk in question. Taking all the circumstances into consideration His Honour said that in regard to the second charge the penalty of one month’s imprisonment was certainly rather a severe one. Therefore. His Honour had decided

tr> reduce the penalty of one month’s imprisonment to a fine of £35. In regal d to the first charge His Honour upheld the magistrate’s decision, imposing a £SO fine.