THE MILK WE DRINK.

NZ Truth, Issue 108, 13 July 1907, Page 6

THE MILK WE DRINK.

THE FRESH FOOD AND ICE COMPANY AGAIN.

The Purveyors of Bad Milk.

Dr. McArthur's Reserved Decision.

r At the S.M.s Court, on Thursday last, Dr. McArfchur,, S.M.,' delivered his reserved judgment m the case of the Wellington Fresh Food and Ice Company v. Francis Edward Green, and m the counter claim, Green v. the Wellington Fresh Food and loe Company. Shortly put, the plaintiff Company claimed £96 2/11 for milk and cream delivered to the defendant, for loss of milk and cream reserved for defendant to 30tK April, and for damages for breach of contract, whale ' Green (the defendant) counter- claimed for £78 6/8 for milk unfit for sale to customers, for allowances made to customers lot sour milk ; for damages for loss of customers, and for breach of contract. Green paid into Court the sum of £16 2/11, and costs 12/, for milk" and cream delivered to him. His Worship couldn't discover m the evidence, that any milk and cream were reserved for Green after the morning of 7th March.. This left the [question- concerning the breach of contract. As far as this was concerned, th-o weight of evidence, m the opinion of 'his Worship, tended to show that Green had what was to him a good contract, and he was unable to fulfil his engagements to his customers by reason of THE BAD QUALITY OF THE MILK. Further, it was shown that the Company had to buy milk m order to carry out their contracts, ami this could hardly be reserving m/i-lfo for Green's contract. -J3is Worship did not 'lose sigilvt of the fact that the Company wrote to the defendant on the 15th March, 1907, calling his attention to the fact that milk and cream were being reserved for him i under his agreement. This was at least eight days after any milk and cream had been supplied to, or received by him. Green was a man who could be reached on. an hour's notioe, and be assorted that the Company had refused , to supply him with further milk. He stated that he had returned milk and had had to send some down 'the drain. The point at issue' was, was the contract dissolved 'between the parties ? There was no doubt m this case that the plaintiff Company knew the particular pur-! pose for which the milk and cream was bought, andjin'.t-he opinion of his 1 Worship, a portion of the milk, at the least, was not fit. for the purposes for which it was b'dugh-t. All the cases went to show that' the law was I strict on the quality of goods whea BOUGHT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. His Worship gave quoted judgments m support of this con'teiuti'C'n. One point alone remained, was Groan set Tree hj the supply of milk not suit.able for his customers ■? In the opinion of his Worship, each party, m this case intended to abandon the contract en the 7th day of March. Such being his opinion, he considered the plaintiff Company .entitled to judgment for the amount paid into Court, but the -defendant Green was entitled to his costs, as on a claim against him for the- amount, paid m, with his witnesses' expanses. This was virtually a judgment m favor of the defendant Green, m the counter claim, without costs.