THE ADULTERATION OF MILK CASES IN AUCKLAND.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2038, 7 May 1875, Page 3

THE ADULTERATION OF MILK CASES IN AUCKLAND.

The following is the report of the proceedings in these cases in the Auckland. Police Court :• —Terence Brady was charged with a breach of the Adulteration of Food Act, by selling an article of drink— io wit, milk—which was adulterated, at Auckland, on the 23rd of April.. Mr Broham prosecuted. Mr Laishley appeared for the defendant, took an objection to the charges being laid by cDmplainant, and stated that no conviction could take place under the Act, if the charges were so laid. The complaint was amended to- an information.— Sergeant Sauuderson deposed: On the morning of the 23rd of April, I purchased half-a-pint of milk from the defendant, which has been paid tor m the usual weekly milk account. I sealed the bottle up in his presence, and told him that I should take it totheProvincia.l Analyst to be analysed. Mr Broham produced the Gazette appointing the Provincial Analyst. James M. Tunny deposed: On the morning of the 23rd of April, Sergeant Saunderson brought to me a sample of milk in the bottle produced. I analysed the milk and found that it was adulterated with from 22 to 23 per cent, of water.—Mr Laishley submitted that a.conviction could not take place, as the 3rd clause of .the statue provided that the residence of the local analyst, should be published in the Gazette. This has not been done, and was a bar to a conviction. The Provincial j Gazette had not been tendered in evidence, but it was found that the. notice of Mr Tunny's appointment in it was ! was simply a. tniiuQcipt of the notijioation

in the General Government Gazette, His Worship: How much milk do you sell a day ? Defendant: About thirty or forty quarts (laughing),—His Worship: Of that there were ten quarts water, at least, You laugh, sir, but if a man professes to sell milk, and sells water instead, taking money for it, what is it but a fraud upon the public? It is obtaining money under false pretences; Do you laugh at that ? if so, you ought to be ashamed of ydurself You have been taking 4s 2d a-day you have no right to. You have at least defrauded the public to the extent of £70 a-year. If you and those who are summdued here were fined £10 each, it would take a great many quarts of water to mako up that fine. But I am very much afraid that the objection taken by.Mr Laishley is fatal. Thero is no doubt the address of the analyst should have been inserted. There aro many other adulterations going on besides those of milk. If a conviction had taken place in these cases, I should have inflicted the utmost penalty: Besides a penally of £10 there would be costs, amounting to perhaps £5 or £6 in each case. But I must dismiss this case, and-1 am very sorry for it, A fraud has been committed on the public, and ought to be punished. There is, however, no doubt the defect will be remedied, and if any of you people are brought here, again you will be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows. In this case I am of opinion there cannot be a conviction. The other cases, I presume, Mr Broham will withdraw. Mr Broham: It ought to be'known that there could hardly be any ignorance of the address of the analyst. That has been published in various forms and times in tho public Press. Of course the public would take some means to protect themselves. Case dismissed.