CHARGES AGAINT MILKMEN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12717, 12 August 1919, Page 5

CHARGES AGAINT MILKMEN.

ALLEGED ADULTERATION. Several local dairymen came before Mr T. A. B. Bailey. S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court to-day on charges of having watered milk. In one instance the .defendant was indicted for haying obstructed the inspector, Mark Kershaw, who wished to secure a sample of his milk. The Department was represented by Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C. The first case was against George Tliomas Marriott who was charged with selling adulterated food and wxtn having sold milk until water added. Mr Raymond explained that a sample of defendant’s milk bud been sent to the analyst and found to be considerably under standard. Since then the defendant bad received a certificate from tbo Wellington analyst showing that a sample sent to him was over standard. "The Court will understand,” said Mr Raymond, ‘‘that the procedure is for three bottles of samples to betaken. The third bottle (produced) bad not been tested and counsel asked the Magistrate to authorise a test of the third sample of milk. Section 21 of the Foods and Drugs Act gave authority for this course. The Magistrate agreed to the course proposed and ordered the sample to be re-sealed and sent to the Government analyst at Dunedin. The case would be adjourned ’until August 26. DEFENDANT NOT THE REAL CULPRIT. Alexander Meharry (Mr Gee) was similarly charged. Mr 'Gee stated that defendant would plead guilty to a breach of the regulalons, but there were circumstances that required explanation. Meharry was an old man who had now gone out of business. His wife had gone to the North Island and defendant had obtained assistance. The old man bad always nerved good milk and had never been guilty of adulterating bis supply. Mark Kershaw, dairy inspector, said he was convinved thta the old man was not to blame, but that the guilty person was the one who distributed the milk among the customers. Mr Raymond said that the Department would ask for a convicion, but did not press for a heavy penalty. The charge of having sold adulterated food was withdrawn by leave of the Court. A conviction was entered on the other charge and a fine of 20s imposed, with costs. A NOMINAL PENALTY. John Peters (Mr Edgar) was also Charged on two similar counts. Mr Edgar explained that his client had been in business for several years and his reputation among customers was good. He had served the Sunnyside ■ Mental Asylum and the supply was always good. There had been no complaints. To one customer defendant served twenty-eight gallons of milk for resale- This supply had been satisfactory until a few days before the proceedings were taken” when the milk was found to be short of the standard. The facts were that Peters bad not been in good health and recently he had been unable to attend to tbe distributing of the milk. A small supply of four .gallons was sent to customers at Tvainoni. The person distributing that, milk had found be required more and had added water. Peters was quite unaware of what had occurred. Air Raymond said the Department had no cause of complaint against defendant hitherto. The Magistrate said the explanation showed that defendant was not tbe culprit, but ho must assume responsibility. The circumstances were somewhat extraordinary and be would impose a nominal_ fine of 40s and costs for milk watering and would allow the othoicharge to be withdrawn. OBSTRUCTING THE INSPECTOR. Leonard Hadfield (Mr Sargent) was charged with having obstructed Mark Kershaw,, dairy inspector, when taking samples' of milk. Mr Sargent said that defendant would plead guilty. There was no question as to the good reputation borne by Peters gs a purveyor of milk, and as to the quality of the milk, certificates to that effect being banded in from several customers. It was a wellknown fact that dairymen were rather timid concerning the inspector’s visits, and when Mr Kershaw called at defendant’s place at a very early hour on a recent morning defendant became somewhat excited. Peters was upset at any doubt being cast upon his integrity as a dairyman. Ho regretted the Circumstances. Mr Sargent admitted that in 1915 his client had heen convicted for supplying a small quantity of milk not up to standard, hut the charge- was | not one of watering milk. Mark Kershaw stated that in consequence of examination of samples procured on June 30 from a Mr Dodd he had, as a matter of protection to the dairyman as well as in the interests of customers, paid a visit to Hadfiold’s place at 6.45 am. on July 4. Witness knocked at the back door and asked Hadfield for samples of his milk. Hadfield said he would bo with him in a minute and walked towards the front door-. A lengthy delay made witness suspicious, and lie walked towards the dairy. He saw two figures passing along and heard the rattle of cans. Witness sang out: "Leave those cans alone,” and hurried forward. When he reached the spot the figures bad disappeared and a quantifcv of sullied milk was on tbe ground. Later in the morning be bad seen Hadfield with a can of milk, and asked him to sell some, whereupon defendant tipped the contents out. Tile Magistrate said the offence was c serious one, and he would umpose a , fine of £lO and costs.