WATERED MILK.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14327, 18 October 1910, Page 2

WATERED MILK.

IMPORTANT DECISION. A decision of importance to milk vendors was given by Mr W. G. Riddle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, "Wellington on Saturday, in a prosecution brought by the police against the Wellington Fresh Food and Ice Coy., for a saie of milk alleged to have been adulterated with waier. The defendant company, said the Magistrate, was charged with selling nulk containing water. According to the standard lixed by the regulation, nulk should contain not less than 12 per cent, of total solids; not less than 5.5 per cent, of solids not fat: not less than 3.20 per cent, of fatty soiids; and not more than 1 per cent, of ash. An analysis of tiie sample of milk obtained irt.tj the defendant- company disclosed th ■ ituoni parts to be: total suiids lI.Ii. solids not fat 7.42, :at:v solids !.30i with a statement by tha nr.aiysist that the sample contained 12.71 per cent, of water in excess or that allowed by the standard. See,xion 20 makes the production by the prosecution of a certificate of analysis, purnortiu:; to be under the hand of an analyst, sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein, unless the defendant requires the analyst to be called as a witness. Defendant did nqt require the analyst t-.j be called as a witness, nor was the correctness of the analysis questioned. The point raised by the defendant was not that the. certificate was incorrect, but that the. evidence for the prosecution was not sufficient to make defendant liable for the presence of any excess of water in the milk; that it was sold as received from the supplier, and that although water was in excess it had not been added artificially. The analyst's certificate was prima facie evidence of the statel ieiits contained therein, and it- showed that t'li- particular sample of milk had 12.i 1 per ion;, mure water than is allowed by the standard. It, therefore, contained a substance whose addition was prohibited by the regulation. The saie of the article <.f food in which whs found a substance prohibited by regulation constituted the offence, and as defendant W2- not charged with adding [ :lTor the mil;-: -'■'!<!. it seemed to the : Mr.jr!.»-tnit? that in applying the provii sions or the statute to the facts, the Court was not concerned to find how the prohibited substance found it-3 way into the arti-le sold. The defendant company was eonviet- : ed np-i i'i;:ef] 40s with Court cnst3 (7s), analyst fee t'lfls 6d), solicitor's fee £2 2s. Security for appeal was fixed in the sum of -CIO 10s. together with payment of the fine and costs.