A FINE RECOVERED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17353, 19 May 1924, Page 7

A FINE RECOVERED.

MILKMEN AT VARIANCE. AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. A case of considerable interest to people connected with the dairy trade came before Mr H. Y. Widdowson. S.M.. in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. Richard H. Risden (Mr Tracy), dairyman. M’Fadden’s Road, Papanui, claimed from Charles Rountree (Mr Mai ley), dairy farmer, M’Fadden’s Road, Papanui, tlie sum of £l6 Os fid

In his claim plaintiff said that on March 5 he was fined the sum of £lO and costs for selling milk not up to standard. The costs amounted to 17s fid and £5 3s. making a total of £l6 0s Gd. The milk for which lie had been lined, was purchased from defendant. The milk was obtained from defendant at 5.30 in the morning and sold between eight and nine o’clock. He was not present when the inspector took the sample. Fie never mixed defendant's milk with his own. To Mr Mai ley; Were you dismissed by Airs Jamieson for selling stale milk ?_ Plaintiff: J lost her custom, but she gave me no reason. In further cross-examination plaintiff claimed that he could tell the quality of milk by looking at it. Plaintiff created some amusement by gesticulating with his hands when answering questions. Air Malley: You are still getting R-oun tree's mil k—why ? Plaintiff: He said lie would improve it. So tong as my milk gets past the customers I don’t worry. Arr Alalley: Did Mrs Palmer complain about your milk? I Plaintiff : Now that’s getting a bit j hot. (Laughter.) . | XX'hen further cross-examined, plaintiff went into long detailed statements, but the Alagistrate intervened hy saying that the main point lie had todecide was the identity of the milk. Ernest John Dodge, an employee of plaintiff, said lie was on the cart when tho inspector took the sample. He pointed out to plaintiff the can from which the sample was taken, and plaintiff said it was Rountree’s milk. Tie only knew it was Rountree’s mills by what Risden told him. To the Magistrate: He would not know which was R\sden’s anti which was Rountree’s milk. Defendant said Risden used to come to his place at night milking time and tell him how much milk he required» The quantity varied according to what Risden had left over from the pre-

The Alagistrate: What did he do with the milk left over? Defendant: He told me he gave it to the feed house.

The Alagistrate: XX’hat do you mean bv a feed house—a boarding-house ? Defendant: T don’t know* what he meant. _ l never asked him. In further evidence defendant said he had been twenty-four years in the milk trade, both wholesale and retail. : and lie had never had any trouble before. Risden bail told him he didn’t mind the fine, but it would do him jiQ good when tlie customers read, the papers next morning. He was still supplying milk daily to plaintiff. To Mr Tracy: He did not know whether it was his milk on tlie cart or not. Recalled by the Alagistrate. plaintiff said he did not know what defendant meant when he talked about a feed house. He had never used the term. Turning to defendant-, plaintiff said dramatically, “Do you know Charge?” (Laughter.) The Alagistrate said he thought it had better be known as a mystery house. In giving judgment, the Alagistrate said it was difficult to explain howmilk sometimes became below standard. Defendant had rightly stated that he did not know whether it was his milk or not. The probabilities were that it was his milk. The Bench was satisfied that plaintiff was speaking the truth. There was no doubt that where one man sold milk to another, especially for re-selling purposes. it must be of good quality. Air XX'iddowson said he had every reason to believe that in selling the milk which proved to be not of a merchantable quality Rountree was as inI nocent as he himself was. Alany men ' who had been caught selling milk I below- standard had been taken by surprise. and defendant was probably one ! of these. On the other hand there were many careless people. Judgi ment would be for tho amount I claimed.