CASE DISMISSED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20895, 26 November 1937, Page 5

CASE DISMISSED

MILK BOUGHT FROM UNREGISTERED DAIRY NOT SOLD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION A charge of selling for human consumption milk and cream obtained from an unregistered dairy between June 3 and June 18 was preferred against George Baikie in the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr H. Morgan, S.M. Mr T. D. Urquhart, of the Department of Agriculture, prosecuted, defendant being represented by Mr L. M. Inglis, who entered a plea of not guilty. Mr Inglis said that the information covered a number of dates, and he asked that the prosecution should elect a specific date on which to proceed. The Magistrate pointed out that the information should disclose one offence only. If there were a number of offences, then there should be a number of informations. Mr Urquhart said that he was not aware that the position was as indicated, and he asked leave to withdraw the information. Mr Inglis objected to this course, stating that the prosecution could amend the information to a specific date. The Magistrate: The inspector has been taken by surprise. Mr Inglis: The Inspector! He can’t have been taken by surprise. The Magistrate: He can ask to have the information withdrawn with the idea of laying a fresh one. Mr Urquhart then asked for the information to be amended to read June 4. Outlining the facts he said that as a result of Information received, he made inquiries and ascertained that defendant had purchased milk and cream from D. Kennedy at Morven, this man not being a registered dairyman. Between June 3 and June 18 he purchased 22 gallons of milk and 13 gallons of cream. He interviewed defendant who admitted procuring milk and cream from Kennedy. He asked defendant if he had sold the milk and cream for human consumption, and he admitted that he had. The Magistrate: Did he aumit selling this milk and cream to the public? Mr Urquhart: Yes. Did he . ,11 any milk on June 4? —That date was not mentioned. You see, you are charging him with selling milk on this particular date. Mr Inglis: When did you g, and see defendant? Witness: On October 20. Did anyone accompany you?—Yes, Mr Lukey, Government veterinarian. Mr Inglis: Then I ask that all witnesses be ordered to leave the Court. An order .o this effect was made. Used For Ice Cream Mr Inglis: What did you say to defendant?—l asked him if he had purchased the milk, and he admitted that he had done so. Did you ask him if he would plead

guilty or not guilty?—No. I never ask anyone that. You know he makes ice cream?—l know he makes a little. He is an agent for another company which makes ice cream. Did you note the conversation?—l made a note of part of it, but not all of it, as several topics were discussed. Did you ask defendant how or to whom he had sold the milk and cream?—No. He admitted having sold the milk and cream. Did you r.sk him where he sold the milk and cream?—He has a milk round in Timaru, and I presumed that he sold it in Timaru. That is the trouble. You have presumed too much. My evidence will be that there was no such admission. E. J. Griffith, Government stock inspector, at Waimate, said that D. Kennedy, of Morven, was an unregistered dairyman. He visited Kennedy who admitted having supplied milk to Baikie. Mr Inglis: I object to this method. Hearsay Evidence The Magistrate: This i.: only hearsay. You must call Kennedy to give evidence as to the dates on which he supplied the milk and cream to defendant. E. J. Lukey, Government veterinarian, said that he was present when Inspector Urquhart interviewed defendant, who admitted having sold milk and cream which he had obtained from Kennedy. He also said that he had obtained milk from a company in Timaru, but he did not know from where that milk had been secured. Mr Inglis: At what point of the conversation was the question of selling this milk mentioned?—l couldn’t be sure whether it was at the beginning or in the middle of the conversation. Mr Inglis submitted that the evidence as to the sale of the milk was unsatisfactory and unreliable. In the first instance the inspector asked defendant if hg had bought and sold milk from an unregistered dairy and he replied that probably he had. The Magistrate: I think the onus is on defendant to prove that he did not sell this milk. Mr Inglis: Under the regulations there is no onus on defender/ to show that he had sold this milk. The Magistrate; I think there is a prima facie case. Defendant has a milk round and makes ice cream, and there is an Irresistible inference that the milk was sold for human consumption. Mr Inglis: With due respect to the Court, I submit that there is no irresistible inference, for defendant had many activities in which he could use the milk. The Magistrate: I rule that the onus is shifted to the defendant. Defendant’s Evidence Defendant, in evidence, said that on his milk round, he sold his own milk only, which he secured from ? pedigree Jersey herd. He also had a mixed herd, and this milk was used for other purposes, including the manufacture of ice cream. The inspector asked him if he had purchased milk from an unregistered dairy and he admitted that he had. He had not sold tl.j milk but had used it for ice cream. The milk he had bought was not good, and he had pasteurised it before making the ‘ :e cream.

In reply to the inspector, defendant said that in June the output of the Jersey herd was more than sufficient to cover the retail round. He did not remember having admitted thr.t he had sold the milk which he secured from Morven. He had never said that his ice cream plant had worked very little since he had secured the agency for a certain company. The Magistrate reviewed the evidence and said that while defendant admitted having purchased the milk, he did not admit having sold it for human consumption. He held that milk and cream for human consumption meant milk and cream in the ordinary sense, and not that which was used in the manufacture of ice cream. The information vould be dismissed.