DAIRY COMPANIES FINED

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1786, 24 July 1926, Page 5

DAIRY COMPANIES FINED

BREACH OF DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT.

EXCESSIVE WATER IN BUTTER.

(By Telegraph. Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, Friday

Unusual charged were preferred against two dairy companies at the Police Court to-day. The Hinuera Cooperative Dairy Company Ltd., was* charged with, on June lOt'b, sending for grading for export 30 boxes of butter, one box of which was found to. contain 16.6 per cent, of water, while the Rotorua Central Dairy Company was charged with sending for grading 27 boxes of butter, one box of which was found to contain 16.8 per cent, of water.

iMr A. A. Thornton, chief produce grader for the Department of Agriculture at Auckland, said, that the prosecutions were brought more as a warning tto other factories, and that lie did not press for a 'hiea.vy penalty. •However, s ome time later, after Mr L. P. Leary, who appeared for the firstnamed company," had; addressed the Court, Mr Thornton stated that the cases were rather seriou(s ones. “The boxes had been double dated, and this shows -that an attempt had been made to evade a sample being taken,” he said. “Double dating means that there are .two churnings in the box —the top may be under moisture and the under churning may be over moisture.” Mr Leary teaid that Mr Thornton’s remarks were uncalled for, especially in view of the Department’s attitude. The Department had; accepted the explanation. The offence was the result of pure inadvertence, and nothing turned on the double dating. It was impossible to prevent a little water getting in as butter had to be washed with water. It was also impossible to prevent the churning of over-moist'urer Mr Leary then read a letter from Mr W. M. Singleton; director of the dairy division, in which he said he was reluctant to prosecute: The company in question had a most excellent reputation After the test had been made in Auckland the butter was sent back and put right. Mr Leary suggested that in view of the attitude of the Department. the defendant company should be leniently dealt with. Mr Hunt: Of course, the regulations are for the purpose of protecting this important industry. , Mr Stillwell, for tlhie Rotoru!a Company, said that the offence was also the result of pure inadvertence in this Remarking that there was a penalty of £SO involved, the magistrate said that'the- cases were not serious breaches. Each company would he fined £5 and costs.