MILKMEN PROSECUTED.

Otago Witness, Issue 2811, 26 August 1908, Page 9

MILKMEN PROSECUTED.

ALLEGED. ADULTERATION. INTERESTING LAW POINT. On Friday, in the City Police Court, before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., a number of purveyors of milk in the city "were proceeded against by the inspector of weights and measures. George Fox, milkman, of Pine Hill, pleaded " Not guilty" to a charge that he did, on July 23 last, sell to John M 'ln tyre a pint of adulterated milk. Mr P. SL K. Macassey appeared for the ' inspector, and Mr A. C. Hanlon " for defendant. Mr Macassey briefly outlined' the case. Defendant was a milkman supplying townspeople with milk. On July 23 last the ' inspector of weights and measures obtained from his cart a sample of milk which, on being analysed, showed 13.5 of solids, of which only 2.75 per cent, was 'butter fat. As the new regulations expressly stipulated that milk sold must not contain less than 3.25 per cent, of butter-fat, the present prosecution was brought under the Sale of Foods Act of 1907. ' Professor Black, Government- analyst, appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Aot, gave formal evidence. The total solids were 13.5 per cent., of which the milk fats were 2.75 per cent. To Mr Hanlon: In analysis he used a general process, and afterwards a confirming' process, and he made no mistake. It might, be possible for -butter fat and solids to vary in an analysis of the same sample made much later, and this might show a very considerable variation in the amount of butter fat and solids obtained. The I amount of butter fat and solids in fresh '•milk might be much greater than in curdled or sour milk If the milk were in a sealed bottle, it would still in time turn sour, because it^bad been exposed to the air. This was the case for the prosecution^ Mr Hanlon submitted that the case must be dismissed, on the ground that the certificate of the analyst served on the defendant with his summons, which should be in the form prescribed by the regulations and be a condition precedent to the prosecution, did not conform with any prescribed form, because there was no such stipulation in the new regulations. As the certificate from . the hand of the analyst was not on" any prescribed form, he contended that the court had no jurisdiction, and quoted authoj rities in favour of hk argument. j His Worship promised to consider the ; point, and Mr Hanlon proceeded with his | case. 1 He stated that defendant was a very carej ful dairyman, and the fact that a prosej cution of this sort was brought was, for i him, a very serious matter. The new regulations had imposed somewhat severe 1 hardships on milkmen. For instance, I they could "not now, as formerly, mix their milk while on their rounds ; this must be . done in a properly constructed room, and ' the result was that while some customers ' received milk that was unduly rich, others I were supplied with a commodity that was I very poor. The sample of milk .given by '- the inspector to the boy had been j analysed by Mr G. M. Thomson, who had ! found different results from those obtained by Professor Black. G. M. Thomson, analyst, eaid he had examined a sample of the milk on the 14th August, and found that the* total solids were-J.1.77 per cent., and butter fat 3.3 per cent., and non-fatty solids 8.47 per cent. I Therefore he made the total butter-fat i above the standard, while the eolids were I only .23 per cent, below the standard, ! which was 12. The milk was curdled and sour, but that did not interfere with a proper analysis. He thought that the fact that the milk had been left for so long would cause the solids to become less, while the butter-fat would remain the same. He tested for butter-fat by tha Babcock process. He thought the percentage of nonfatty solids (over 13) obtained by Professor Black was very high. Mr Hanlon : Are not the standards set by the new regulations rather high? Witness : Well, there is a considerable difference of opinion regarding^ that. In Paris the authorities ask for only 10.19 per cent. In some of {he American | States it ie as high as 12, while most of I the analvs>.ts here who give recommendaI tions favour rather lower figures. Mr Hanlon: They ask for an extraordinary amount now — you could nearly walk ! on it. I To Mr Macassey : He would not lontradict Dr Black if he said that the process of analysis by ether, in the case of curdled milk, separated the lactic acid from the milk, together with the butter-fat, and, being weighed with the latter, added to its percentage. He had never heard such a statement before, however. George Fox, defendant, giving evidence under cross-examination by Mr Macassey, i said xhat his cows were in good condition, 1 and the cream had not been taken off the

milk in question. .. Only by one or other of those causes could the percentage of butter-fat have decreased. * v Dr Black, recalled, said 'the Babeook test was a -very good rough commercial test, but it was not a chemical test. His process was to reduce the milk to dryness by evaporation, and afterwards to apply the ether j>rooess7 If the milk had been curdled, the ether would not separate the" " butter-fat and lactio acid, which would be weighed together. The Babcock test, used by Mr Thomson, did not separate those. Lactic acid was originally sugar in sweet, milk, .which, when sourness ensued,, broke up into lactic acid. When sweet* milk was analysed, the sugar.. went with the solids, but in the case of .sour milk the laotio acid went with the butter-fat, and the percentage of solids was correspondingly decreased. This, it appeared, was what had happened in the case of Mr Thomson's analysis. His (witness s) analysis was made while the milk was comparatively fresh." Sir Hanlon proceeded to argue his case. His Worship: The point is this: Which analysis am I to accept, in the absence of any prescribed method? His Worship went on to say that there was in the regulations no prescribed method of analysis and, as there was a doubt, he must, under tLe circumstances, give the defendant the benefit of it. He could not do otherwise than dismiss the case. - _ Ernest Hellyer, of North-East Harbour, was then similarly charged by the inspector of weights and measures in respect to « sample bought by the latter on July .23. Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence, and said he proposed to conduct his case in the same manner as in the previous, one. His "Worship asked to hear the evidence. Professor Black gave evidence. ±h» sample of milk he had analysed, which was understood to have been P™"*"™ l from defendant, gave, 2.99 of butter-fat, and 9.41 of solids other than fatty. Mr 6. M. Thomson, giving evidence for the defence, said the samp c of milkanalysed by, him had -shown 3.19 per etnt Tbutter-fat and 11.25 per «nrt. of so hcfe The milk fats were slightly below ■ the standard, but the milk was neverthelesj of * excellent quality. „ Ernest Hellyer said he retailed n.uk every day which he purch a*df*om thiee farmers on the Peninsula. On the particular day. on which the inspector purchased milk from him he had bought miljc from other milkmen, as the farmers from whom he usually purchased milk could not supply him with all he required and it was a portion of this milk that had been purchased and analysed by the inspector. His Worship, in view g£ the fact that both analysts showed that the £»<"»>*£[ butter-fat on. the milk was below^ the standard, was not disposed to deal with the case as he had the previous one, and, on Mr Macassey's application, adjourned ». till the 25th inst in ot <Ht, / ™Xr tain authorities dealing with the matter to be looked up. James Weir, Green Island Bush. was. also charged with supplying milk below, the standard required by the regulations. He pleaded '"Not guilty;" and was dehe found by analysis in the milk- submitted! to him was 3.55 per cent., .while the total solids were IL6B per cent. The Percentage of butter-fat was therefore above the minimum standard required but the total solids were .32 below. The standard set was not a high one. and the analysis therefore disclosed milk that was inclined to be poor. . , . Mr G M. Thomson said by his analysis of the milk he found 3.8 of butter-fat and 7.17 of non-fatty solids, or a total percentage of solids of 10.97. In non-fatty solids the milk was below the standard, which was 8.5. , Mrs Weir and John Weir deposed that/ the milk analysed had been taken from a small can in which was th© milk of one particular cow— a cow that gave an unuuual amount of butter-fat in her milk t aa more than one analysis had proved. ThU case ako was adjourned to tha 25th in-t. .