ADULTERATED MILK.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2048, 7 September 1920, Page 7

ADULTERATED MILK.

... .—« - VENDOR'S AGENT LIABLE. DECISION OP MAGISTRATE. "Where a vendor of milk entrusts its delivery to a voluntary carrier, who has no authority to sell or deliver it to others, and, whilst the carrier is in progress of delivery of the milk, a sample; is bought by an officer appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908, such carrier is the vendor's agent, to hand to the officer the sample demanded) and to receive the market value there- ** of." _ So ruled Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., in delivering a reserved judgment in the case of Marshall E. Bettell (an officer appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908) v. Harry Bliss, the information in which case alleged that the defendant unlawfully sold to the informant, without fully informing him, as and being such purchaser at the time of the sale, of the nature ot adulterated milk, which failed to comply with the standard prescribed therefor, in that it contained less than 3 J per cent, of milk fat.

The case was heard on August 31, when Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for the informant and Mr A. F. Wright) for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Reviewing the evidence, Mr McCarthy stated that the defendant was under contract to sell and supply milk to the Military Sanatorium and Karitaue Hospital for infants. The defendant, being engaged beforo the Board of Trade oii June 21 last, arranged with a fellow dairyman, Muml'ord, to deliver a small portion of milk to the two institutions mentioned. The delivery was actually performed by ono Walker, who was met, after delivering the milk at the sanatorium, by an officer duly appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. The informant demanded and obtained a sample of the milk from defendant's cans, stating that he wanted it for the purposes.of analysis. For this milk the informant paid the current market value. The analysis showed that, when submitted to the reductase test, the sample decolorised the methylene blue *»• in less than three hours, and was, therefore, unfit for sale as food. It was needless to emphasise, said Mr McCarthy, how important it was that, milk supplied to the general public for the purposes of food —more especially to a sanatorium or an institution where there were always a number of infants—should at least be up to the minimum standard. In any event, it should be lit for human consumption. It was contended for the defence that the sale by Walker was for the purpose of analysis, and not for human consumption, and was therefore not a sale within the meaning of the v Act: and that the statutory sale by Walker to the informant was unauthorised. It was clear, however, that the milk, so delivered, was to defendant's knowledge, for human consumption. Section 22 of the Act made it abundantly clear that the compulsory sale by Walker to the informant was the snmo as if it had been an ordinary sale for human consumption, because bulk, from which the sample was taken, was, on defendant's own admission, intended for human consumption. Had, then, Walker authority to sell to the informant? In answering the question, it was necessary to keep m mind the provisions of the Statute. The ordinary principles of contract, and those applicable between principal and agejt, did not apply. Here Walker, being engaged in performing on the defendant's behalf an essential element of a contract of sale of milk intended for human consumption, could not lawfully refuse to sell to the informant a sample of milk for the purpose of analysis, and, having made a compulsory statutory sale for that purpose, the same became a Sale of milk within the meaning of the Act, and the milk thus sold being deficient in milk fat, and being otherwise unfit for sale as food, the sale was an unlawful one. If vendors could escape conviction when selling adulterated foods by adopting the device of entrusting delivery to those who are not their servants, or by limiting the authority of their servants, or by limiting the authority of their servants to the duty of delivering t o certain specified persons, then the Act, carefully drafted as it had been, would become a "dead letter." Certainly the tender of the market value was not made to the de- ' .fondant personally. Walker, however, was the defendant's agent to deliver milk, and, in so doing, was carrying out, (m defendant's behalf, an essential part cf the contract of sale. When the informant demanded a sample 'from Walker, the latter was a person selling milk within the meaning of the definition, and what he was doing was on dft« fendant's behalf, and as defendant's agent. The. Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, 1908, was an unambiguous and un-t equivocal mandate from Parliament, which the Court was not at liberty to disregard. "I shall take into consideration, " concluded Mr McCarthy, "that the defendant might not have known of jthe bad quality of the milk. fTovrever, the general public, including i-ousump-. tives and helpless infants, must be protected. The defendant will be fined, £lO, and ordered to pay the costs. '