ADULTERATED MILK

Otago Witness, Issue 3495, 8 March 1921, Page 52

ADULTERATED MILK

TWO DEFENDANTS FINED. In the City Police Court on Friday morning, before Mr J. It. Bartholomew, S.M., two i charges were heard of selling adulterated ! milk. i In the first case James Dunlop was charged | that on September 21, 1920, at Green Island, I he sold! adulterated milk, containing less ! than 8 5-10ths of milk solids other than ! milk fat without informing the purchaser. There was an alternative charge of -seamg : adulterated milk for human consumption, containing 25 per cent, of added water Mr Irwin, who appeared for the defendant, entered a plea of guilty on the first charge Mr Adams, on behalf of the Health Department, stated that this was apparently a case in which water had been added after the extraction of the milk from the cow. That was shown by the fact that the proportion of solids was lower than if the milk had been eold in its natural condition, apart altogether from the quantity of butter-fat. The butter-fat was still above the minimum allowed by he Act, but the soilds were lacking and 1 here fore the department looked i upon it in a more serious light. The Magistrate: It must have been an | exceptionally rich sample of milk in the first j place. | Mr Adams: Yes, that is so; but there is ! an obligation to sell the whole of the cream in the milk. Mr Irwin said he wanted to make it clear that there was no suggestion of the abstraction of any of the butter-fat, but it was alleged that water had been added. They ; were entirely bound by the analyst’s report, although it seemed strange that there was so much but ter-fat in the milk even after ■ the addition of 25 per cent, of water. The defendant was not a dairyman, and had never sold milk before He was a miner who ; kept two cow 3 for the use of his own family, and he had sold a small quantity of the surplus milk to a dairyman. He did not admit 1 1 aving added any water, and at the piesent time he had gone right out of the dairying business. Mr Adams said there was no doubt some hardship in the prer-ent case, but the de- ; partment took a serious vevv of the actual ! facts of the case as revealed by the analysis, i The Magistrate said that in view of the defendant’s circumstances he would impose a fine of £5, with costs (7s), analyst’s fee (10s 6d), and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s). 1 | THE SECOND PROSECUTION. In the second case, John Ford and William Ford were charged with selling milk coni taining less than per cent, of milk fat. It was agreed to strike out the case against William Ford, and Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the defendants, entered a plea of guilty on behalf of John Ford. 1 Mr Adams said this was not a case of the deliberate addition of water. The sample analysed was .154 short of the actual standard I Mr Hanlon said the inspector had bought a pint of milk from John Ford, and had informed him later that it was below standard. The defendant did not take any action with regard to the sample which was supplied to them, and there was no use having a sample tested at a later date because the milk changed very rapidly. They were therefore bound by the department’s analysis, which showed that it was a little below the require men te as far a« butter-fat was concerned, although in solids it was above the

standard. It had been shown in past caeea that under certain defective conditions with regard to the butter-fat would fall below the standard without any interference with the milk. The firm to which the defendant oelonged had been in existence for 30 years, and during the whole of that time no charge of that sort had previously been brought against them. I hey had a herd of mixed ca ; t.e, niostly Holsteins, which were fed in tho ordinary way, and nothing had been done to the milk. It was purely a case of the milk dropping below the standard because something in the feed was lacking. The defendant did not know it was below standard, and in view of the circumstances he suggested that a moderate fine would meet the caes. Magistrate said it seemed to him that the explanations put forward in some of theae cases were open to doubt. In the present instance the milk fat was considerably under standard. In the previous case, even addition of water, it was very considerably over the standard. He had recently heard cases in Oamaru where it was said that m September the milk was of a low standard some of it undJer 3.25 per cent, of milk fat. Curiously enough, the inspector had arrived during the morning milking, i tcX3t shown above the standard (d.j), whereas the previous evening’s milk had given a test below standard. In addition to that it was claimed that the evening milk should be better than that given in the morning Hls experience, therefore, discredited tne argument that milk which was not interfered with would fall below the standard. He had endeavoured to find a reason for these rather curious variations, but the experts had been unable to give a satisfactory explanation, and his experience had caused him to form the opinion that the Government standard should not be difficult to maintain by the vendors of milk. In wv P, r . esen J case the defendants had an obligation to see that the milk was up to standard. M hether they were morally responsible for its being below the standard was beside the question, except in regard to he amount of the penalty. It was ttrange that this milk should be under the standard , was their duty to see that this was not the case. A fine of £lO would be imposed, with court costs (7s), analyst’s fee (10s 6d), and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s).