ADULTERATION OF MILK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 7

ADULTERATION OF MILK.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF DAIRYMEN.

CITY MILKMEN FINED,

Tho greater part of a lengthy sitting of the City Police Court on Friday was occupied in hearing charges against milkmen for selling milk under the standard. The charges were heard by Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.

The first defendants charged were John Bradbury and Stephen Bradbury, and the complaint against them was that they had sold to Kenneth Cameron (Health Department) adulterated milk, without informing him of the nature of the adulteration.

Mr Fraser, K.C., who appeared for tho prosecution, said section 13 of the Act showed that it was immaterial whether the offence was committed in ignorance or collusivcly. In Parker v. Alder the defence was that the milk was adulterated in transit by third parties without the knowledge of the vendor, and Lord Russell said that tho moral innocence of the vendor made no difference. The Act * was passed for the protection of the public, and the responsibility for tho quality of the food was on the vendor. Section 14 gave a defendant a defence —namely, if he could show' that he purchased the article on a written warranty. In the matter of penalty, the Act distinguished between wilful and innocent adulteration. In the case of wilful adulteration the defendant for a first offence was liable to a fine not exceeding £2OO or throe months’ imprisonment. The defendant who did not offend wilfully was liable for a first offence io a penalty not exceeding £SO, and for subsequent offences he might be fined up to £2OO. The standard provided for a minimum of 8 5-10ths of milk solids other than milk fat, and 3| per cent, of milk fat, and in regard to this case the analyst reported 2.99 per cent, of milk fat and 9.08 per cent, of milk solids other than milk fat. The milk solids other than milk fat were therefore slightly in excess of tho required standard. Tho analyst added that the analysis showed that the butter fat w r as below tho limit, and that this would result from the abstraction of 8 per cent, of cream from a milk already of tho lowest quality allowed to bo sold as food by the regulations. It was only right to add that Bradbury’s servant, from whom the milk was bought, told tho buyer that this was not Bradbury’s milk, but milk that ho had bought to make up a deficiency for the supply of his run. Kenneth Cameron, inspector under the Public Health Department, said in his evidence that on July 16 ho made a purchase from Roger Allan, who said he was a servant of Stephen Bradbury. Witness bought a pint of milk, and it was put into a bottle Witness paid 2d afterwards. Witness said it was for analysis. Ho divided tho milk into three parts, and sealed it arid labelled it with particulars of tho purchase. Witness gave the seller one sample, put another in a basket, and posted the third to Mr A. A. Bickerton, who was a public analyst under the Act at Christchurch. Witness produced tho analysis. Stephen Bradbury subsequently told witness that this milk was not his own, but had been purchased from another party to supply his run. Inspector Arnold was with witness at the time.

Mr Wm. C. MacGregor, who appeared tor defendants, said the occurrence set forth happened on a Wednesday morning. On Wednesdays the defendant had to supply an extra five gallons to the accommodation house at the Burnside saleyards, and as a result ho on Wednesdays was occasionally short of milk when ho neared the end of his run. When this happened his practice was to buy from one of the T. and P. carts. On this morning he bought five gallons, and as it came from near the bottom of a large can very possibly there may have boon less than the average of cream. Bradbury and his boy went on delivering in good faith. The inspector came along about, the end of the delivery, and then the butter fat was in the fire, so to speak. No doubt, the analysis was substantially accurate, but it was curious how the analyst worked the matter out. The analysis showed that the milk solids other than milk fat were considerably in excess of the requirement, being 9.08 os against 8.50. The deficiency of cream was more than made up by the milk solids. Probably some of the cream had gone with the* T. and-P. milk that had been sold from the top of the can. The deficiency was so trifling that his Worship would bo justified in dismissing the case, notwithstanding the authorities cited by Mr Fraser. Stephen Bradbury said that ho carried on business in partnership with his brothor John. The boy Roger Allan was now in the north somewhere. In the winter time lie often had to buy milk. On this Wednesday morning he was five of six gallons short, and he bought from a T. and P. cart at St. Clair. Tlrs milk came from a 10-gallon can. When witness spoke about it afterwards the seller said it might have come from the bottom of the can. Cream had a tendency to rise in the cans. Wit ness didn’t know but that it was all right when ho bought it. Thos. J. Walker, reporter, gave evidence to the cffi'ct that the milk supplied by the defendant to his house was the best ever supplied—the most consistently good that witness ever had. —Mr liartholomew said that he could not regard a case such as this as one that should be dismissed as trifling. It had been shown that the defendant was in the habit of serving milk of a very high quality. On this occasion he bought milk that was under the standard according to the regulations. The Act cast upon the milkman the absolute duty of satisfying himself as to the quality, and though he acted perfectly bona fide, it was not sufficient. He must satisfy himself about what ho bought, and if he failed to do so the responsibility was on his shoulders. The Act would be ineffective, if not altogether futile, if a defence such as the present availed The Act provided for a substantial penalty, even if the offender acted in good faith, hue without taking sufficient steps to satisfy himself. The provisions were stringent, and no doubt necessarily so, in the interests of the public health, and the responsibility of tiie vendor was absolute. The case was one that called for lenient treatment, but the smallest penalty ho could inflict was a fine of 40s.—Mr MacGregor asked that the oase against John bo dismissed, and the, fine recorded against Stephen. Ilis Wonship said that ho would halve the penalties. Each defendant would bo fined 20s, with 9s lOd costa in addition to tho professional fee.— -Mr

Fraser said that ho would withdraw the second charge against defendants of selling hiilk with water added.—Mr MacGregor submitted that as the defendants were cited to answer a charge that could not be sustained they were entitled to costs. —After argument his Worship said that on the analyst’s certificate not only could that charge not be sustained, but it should never have been brought. The adulteration could not have been made by adding water. Defendants were entitled to costs. Half a guinea would be allowed to each defendant. OTHER CASES. John Bain, sen., and John Bain, jun. were charged with having on August 5 sold adulterated milk without fully informing tho purchaser of the nature of the adulteration. —Mr Fraser conducted the prosecution, and Mr Hanlon appeared for the defendants, who pleaded “ Not guilty.”—-Mr M’Donald Armour, official of tho Health Department, said he took a sample of the milk. He was supplied with a pint of milk by Mr Bain, jun., and told him it was for analysis. A portion of it was sent to Professor Bickerton for analysis and a portion handed to defendant.—Mr Hanlon; Will you swear the divided samples were scaled so that the air could not get in or the liquid get out?— I think so.—Mr Hanlon: Would you bo surmised to find that the sample you gave Mr Bain leaked out of the bottle, as the cork was so badly put in and sealed?—! would be surprised. —Mr Hanlon asked witness whether, seeing the difference between what was required and what was found > by analysis was so small, ho did not think it was cutting matters pretty fine to prosecute.—Witness replied that that appealed to him, but of course ho had nothing to do with that.—Mr Hanlon said that this was a case where the milk fat was considerably more than what was required by the reregulations, and the milk solids were very little below what was required—3.4 instead of 3.25, and 8-4 instead of 8.5. To say that a man should be prosecuted under such circumstances seemed to him to bo straining the Act. Counsel referred to a ease whore the deficiency was so small that it had been decided not to prosecute. lie called John Bain, jun., who gave evidence.—The Magistrate remarked that no stops had been taken By defendants to find out whether the milk was up to standard, and though it fell very little short of requirements, being slightly deficient in solids other than fat solids, and having a greater supply of butter-fat than was required, ho did not think it was a ease that ho could treat as trivial. Defendant would be fin cel 40s and costs (30s 10d). —In connection with other charges Mr Hanlon applied for costs.—Mr Fraser said it was the same offence.—Mr Hanlon drew attention to the date in tho information being July 16, and tho representatives of tho department had never bought milk on that date. —Mr Fraser said there was an error in tho date. —II is Worship said that the informations would be withdrawn and that no costs would be allowed. Ho thovht both prosecutions related to tho one offence, and ho did not think it was reasonable to assume that another occasion was charged.

Ernest Hcllyor was charged with n similar offence—namely, w.th having sold adulterated milk on July 16 without informing the purchaser of the nature of the adulteration. —Mr Fraser appeared for the prosecution. —Mr Hanlon appeared for the defendant, and pleaded “Not guiltv.”—Mr Fraser stated that this was « more serious ease than any yet heard. The condition of the milk had boon brought about by the addition of 20.3 ner cent, of water, and had lo*t yuality by the addition of one-fifth of its bulk of water. He could not conceive any condition that would make a cow produce 20 per cent, of water, and suggested that the adulteration had been deliberate.—Evidence was given by Kenneth Cameron (Health Department).—Mr Hanlon sa : d ho proposed to call defendant to give evidence that he had a first class herd, and that Dus milk had been sold as it came from the cow. and that no water had been added to the milk. Counsel referred to a former ease where two analysts had disagreed iu their analyses. Defendant asserted that a mistake had been made with regard to the analysis, and there -was no means of checking it. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that he had the best strain of Jersey cattle. The milk was delivered in the condition in which it was taken from the cow. No one but his boy and himself had access to the milk, and it was not possible for anyone to water it. Ho contended that there must have been a mistake in the .analvs-s. The bottle containing milk ho had had handed to him by the department had got broken in his pocket, and he had been unable to get an analyst made.—To Mr Fraser: He delivered about £2 Ift* worth of milk a day.—Mr Fraser; So that if the adulteration is correct you make an additional 10s a day.—The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said that it was shown that tire, milk produced from defendant’s herd was well above the average quality. It would anpear that there was a great difference between what was usually supplied from defendant’s herd, and the sample, which was not only below the' average in quality hut below the standard. The suggestion was that there hid been a mistake made in the aiialys’s. There might have been some slight mistake, but the margin was so very great that the explanation did not geern feasible. He could only take it that the analysis correctly described the milk supplied bv defond-ant. who would be fined ‘£lo, and costs (£2 19s Bd).--A charge of selling milk that had been watered was withdrawn.

Robert .Tamos 'Wright' pleaded “ Not guiltv ” to having, on July 8. sold adulterated milk without fully informing the purchaser of the nature of the adulteration. —Mr Fraser appeared for the prosecution. Mr Hanlon for defendant.—Defendant stated that the milk, a sample of which had been taken, had been bought by h : m fiom a farmer at the Upper Junction. He know about his own milk, and offered the officer of the department some of that, but he said, “ Xo, this will do me.’' Witness told the officer he did not. know anything about the milk he had taken.— Mi Cameron, who had given evidere<* fn tt'o -'v cfn.-ro.-. of the case, was recalled, and said (hat he did not tell him at, the time that the milk was not from his own herd. —The Magistrate said he would be justified in' assuming that the milk supplied was the milk purchased in the ordinary way by defendant. and that he had no reason to believe ■it stas deficient in quality. Tie (Mr Bartholomew) would treat the case (he same as he had treated another, and fine defend ant £2, and costs '£2 19s 8d), —A second charge was withdrawn. /