ALLEGED WATERING OF MILK

Otago Witness, Issue 3149, 22 July 1914, Page 10

ALLEGED WATERING OF MILK

POLICE COURT PROSECUTIONS,

THREE OFFENDERS CONVICTED AND FINED.

In the City Police Court on the 10th inst., before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., three prosecutions took place against persons wJio were alleged to have offered adulterated milk for sale to the public. Sub-inspector Fouhy conducted the prosecutions, and Mr Hamon appeared for each of the defendants, the cases being heard separately. . ' Evidence was taken for the prosecution. For the delence, Mr Hanlon said it yould be seen from the analyst’s certificate that the milk concerned contained more butterfat than was required by the regulations, but was rather deficient m ‘‘solids.” The analyst had pointed out that this would result from the addition of water, but there was no evidence to show that it had resulted from such addition. He merely sa.d it could bo caused by that means, but did not say definitely that water had been added, because, of course, he could not. Therefore the defendant could not be convicted, because there was no evidence to show that wafer had boon added, and, as a matter of fact, it would be shown that none had been added. The milk was poor in quality so far as “solids” were concerned, but that was merely the result of the class of food the cows were getting. With regard to the other charge a difficulty also arose, because it was impossible for the defendant to comply with that section of the Act, since ho did not know that there was adulteration. Therefore he could not possibly notify purchasers of any adulteration in the milk when he could not bo aware of it himself. John Glen Donaldson, the defendant, stated that he had been the owner of a dairy for some seven or eight years. He had sold a sample of milk to the public health inspectors on the date in question, and had received payment for the same. The milk had been obtained on the previous evening, and had stood in the dairy during the night. Witness indignantly repudiated the suggestion that the milk had been adulterated in any way. No water at all had been added", and witness “would not do such a thing on his life.” Crossexamined by Sub inspector Fouhy, witness eaid the only way ho could account for the •condition of the milk was because his cattle had been on poor food. The milk had been tested on previous occasions, some years ago, by the dairy inspectors, and had been found satisfactory.

the defendant, Robert James Leyden, pleading “Not guilty.” James Craighead gave evidence as to having purchased a samplc' of milk from an employee of the defendant at Caversham on May 15. This was analysed, and found to be belov the standard. The defendant did not keep cows himself, but purchased milk from various dairies. He occasionally tested the milk himself. In reply to Mr Hanlon, witness said that only a qualified chemist could carry out an accurate test in regard to milk solids. The only reasonable test of solids was that known as the “Babcock” test.

Mr Hanlon intimated that he would adopt the same line of defence in this as in the previous case. The defendant had bought the milk from others, and had applied the only reasonable test that could be applied so as to bring' himself within the provisions of the Act. He had been in the habit of using the Babcock tester, and on that ground alone ho was entitled to a dismissal of the present information. Arthur Henderson was then charged on two similar counts,,,and the evidence for the prosecution was practically identical with that submitted in the two previous cases—namely, that the milk was lacking in “solids,” and therefore not up to the standard.

Mr, Hanlon pointed out, on behalf of the defendant, that the milk concerned contained 4.4 per cent, of butter-fat, while only 3.25 per cent, was required. In “solids,” however, it was a lit tie short, and contained 8.31 per cent, instead of 8.5 per cent., which showed that the percentage of water was very small —viz., 2.4 per cent. The defendant had been carrying on business for some 40 years, and had never been in any kind of trouble before. The only way the defendant could account for the shortage was that it was due to the cows having been fed on green oats. In conclusion, counsel contended that there was no evidence that the regulations had been submitted to Parliament as required by ! the Act. The Magistrate said there were several points raised Jay Mr Hanlon that he desired to ' look into, and he would therefore reserve his decision till, Monday.

In the City Police Court yesterday morning Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., gave judgment in the oases in which John Glen Donaldson, Robert James Leyden, and Arthur Henderson were charged, on two informations, with selling milk that was adulterated by the addition of water, and with failing to inform the purchaser at the time of the sale' of the m sure of such adulteration.

The Magistrate said that each of the three defendants was charged with two breaches of the Act in respect of one sale. It was set forth in the charge (1) that each defendant sold „ adulterated milk, which did not comply with the standard, required by the Act; and (2) that the defendants sold adulterated milk without informing the purchaser as to the nature of the adulteration. The first point, raised by counsel for the defence was that there was no proof that the regulations made under the Act had been laid before Parliament as was required. While that was so, the regulations oanio into force on the date stated in the Gazette notice, and there was, nothing in the Act suspending their operation if that wore not done. He could not find, therefore, that it was a condition nrecedent, or that it would atiect the validity of the regulations. Ihe evidence of the analyst showed in each case that the milk did not come up to the standard, and that being so, -the question of mens re. or knowledge of the quality of the milk, did not come under consideration, and the offender was absolutely liable for the quality of his milk. Therefore, the analyst’s certificate, showing that the milk fell short of the standard, was sufficient to convict the defendants of selling adulterated milk without notifying the purchaser of the adulteration. As it was unnecessary to show that water was added, it was also an offence under the other section of the Act. A further point was made in Leyden’s case, that he was entitled to protection under section 13 of the Act, which provided that in a prosecution for selling any food

or drug contrary to the provisions of the Act the defendant had to prove that he took all reasonable precautions. Leyden was a dairyman who bought his milk from others for re-sale, and it was urged on ihis ,| behalf that he had taken all reasonable • precautions by using the “ Babcock ” tester. ® What protection did the “ Babcock test give? It was clear from the , evidence that the only result it could give was to ascertain tho 'quantity ; of milk fat present; but under tho regulations the milk had to comply with the butter-fat standard, and also with that for the other solids. A book that had been handed in showed that a lactometer ■ should be used, but, in a similar prosecution that recently took place in Wellington, it was held that the user of a lactometer had not taken sufficient precautions. His Worship therefore thought it was patent that tho defendant Leyden had not taken sufficient steps to bring himself under the protection of that section of the Act. Before he could claim that protection he would have to use an instrument that could properly test milk-fat and also milk solids. His Worship said ha now had to consider the question of whether or not water was added to the milk. The analysts showed that the condition of the milk would result from the addition of water. Henderson had given an explanation to the effect that the deficiency of the milk solids in his case had been due to the fact that his cows had been fed on a crop of young oats, which contained a great deal of moisture. Donaldson had maide no such explanation, but had said that nothing had been added to the milk, and that his cows had received plenty of grass. It was unsatisfactory in cases such as these that the court should not be furnished with expert evidence. There had been no evidnee submitted to, show the relative value of our standard in comparison with that obtaining elsewhere, and such evidence would have been of material assistance to tho court. It would seem that there was some relation between solid and fat ..contents, and when one found milk rich in milk fat it would naturally follow it should be at least up to tho standard in other solids. It was not possible, therefore, to make any definite inference from the evidence before the court. Henderson’s milk contained milk fat considerably above the standard, and also above the average, while the solids were just .2 per cent, under the standard. In, Donaldson’s case the milk fat was poorer and tho solids were also poor. In Leyden’s case the milk fat was considerably lower, and the solids very low. It would seem, therefore, that there was a striking difference, which pointed strongly to the fact that Leyden’s milk had been tampered with, and that there had been an addition of water. Leyden himself, however,, said he did not interfere with it. It had not been proved that the defendants had been guilty of any actual wrong doing, and the penalty would be made in accordance with the quality of the milk. Each defendant would bo convicted, and ho would bear in mind what had been said, that the fines were for tho protection of the public, apart from any wrong-doing on the part of the defendants themselves. Henderson would bo fined .62 and court -costs (7s): Donaldson £3 and 7s costs; and Leyden £5 and 7s costs. Each defendant would also be required to pay 10s 6d analyst’s fee. The conviction would be on the charge of failing to notify the purchaser of the adulteration in tho milk.