MILK VENDOR FINED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 179, 1 August 1933, Page 9

MILK VENDOR FINED

ADDITION OF WATER MAGISTRATE DEFINES ACT DEFENDANT’S GOOD RECORD The responsibility of a milk vendor to sell milk in accordance with the Sale of Food and Drugs Avt was defined by Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui yesterday morning, when William Battell, of Wanganui, was convicted of having sold milk which did not comply with the Act. Sergeant J. Cleary said that an analysis taken during May showed that milk sold by defendant contained 10 per cent, added water and was deficient in milk solids than milk fat. Mr Salmon said that the Act required that no milk, sold under the Act, should •contain water and that it was an offence to sell milk which contained added water. It was no defence for a person to say the milk contained a higher percentage of butter-fat than most milk, or that there was no intention to sell such milk, or that he did not know it contained added water. In imposing a fine of £3, Mr Salmon took into account defendant’s good record and the fact that no complaints had been made in six years. Defendant was represented by Mr R. S. Withers. Sergeant Cleary said that on May 15 the Health Officer, Mr G. Fear, had taken three samples of milk, one of which was forwarded to the Government analyst at Wellington, whose re port showed that the milk contained 10 per cent, of added water. George Fear, officer appointed under the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, said he had taken three samples in the ordinary way and had sent one to Wellington. Subsequently he had visited the farm, on July 14, nearly two months afterwards, and had examined the tooler. He found that if the water was turned on at full pressure there was a leakage into the milk can, but such did not occur when the water was turned on in the ordinary way. The analysis showed that the percentage in the milk was 8.32. Sergeant Cleary: Was there anything favourable in the report?—Yes, the minimum fat allowed is 3.25 per eent. and the report showed 5.3 per cent. Cross-examined, witness said he knew the farm belonged to defendant’s father, who also owned the cows, and that defendant bought milk from his father. Mr Withers: Would there be any leakage in the cooler with normal use? —No, only if the water was turned full on unnecessarily. If the *ean was placed in a certain position it would receive a certain amount of the leakage, but it would have to be placed so purposely. In the case of this report the butterfat percentage was exceptionally high? —Yes, it, was over two per cent, higher than’ usual. The percentage of milk solids was slightly lowtr. What would you say of the standard of milk from a nutritive point of view? —That it was good milk, according to the butter-fat contents. Have you taken samples of defendant’s milk previously?—Great numbers. Has there been a deficiency?—No, I have always found him to be amongst the b<%t suppliers in the city. Witness also stated that if defendant had desired to test the milk for himself he would have had no way of ascertaining its contents until late in the day, as some time would be required to take an analysis. As far as witness knew the milk was abnormal for its butter-fat content. There was a possibility of a leakage of water into the cooler, but he could not say such was the 'cause of added water in the milk. For the defence Mr Withers raised two points (1) that the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that the milk was up to standard and (2) that the milk tested was abnormal. He contended that the sample of milk which jvas kept by the inspector while the Government analyst was making his report, should be kept in cool storage so a check could be made when the Government report tamo to hand. Tn the present case the sample taken by the inspector had deteriorated by the time defendant had had it analysed in Wanganui. so that no sure check could be made. Counsel referred to a case which had been dismissed in Christchurch and pointed out that it was similar to the case before the Court. William Battell, defendant, said he had no interest in his father’s farm. He frequently inspected the dairy and knew that the Agricultural Department made periodic tests of the milk. No complaints had been made in connection with those tests. There was no possibility of water being added to t»e milk in the shop. He had been selling milk f< r six years, during which time frequent tests had brought forward no complaints. Cross-examined, witness said he had not had the milk tested until it was too | late, because h e had not known a test could be made at Wanganui. Mr Salmon: Every person is deemed to know the law and defendant had h?s opportunity to have a sample taken. Mr Withers pointed out that the costs of taking a sample was a guinea. As samples were taken every three months and as no complaints had been maae in six years it would have been mere speculation for defendant to have had an analysis taken. It was impossible for defendant to take a test to protect himself but he had taken precaution in buying milk from a reliable retailer, had seen that it was kept in a proper place, that there was no possibility of water being added and that the milk was freely agitated to distribute the cream. He had taken all reasonable steps under section 13 of the Act. Mr Salmon: Do you expect me to over-rule th e Goyernrnent analyst? Mr Withers: There is a doubt about it. Mr Salmon: How can there be? When an analyst declares there is a deficiency of food solids and that 10 per tent, oi water has been added, how can 1 oppose it? Defendant should have had a test taken the same day. Mr Withers: Technically there was an opportunity, practically there was none. Mr Salmon; One point should be brought out in fairness to the defend- . mt. What was the quantity of milk tn the dairy that you tested for the ' analysis I Mr Fear: Less than a gallon. 1 tested at 3.30 o’clock in the afternoon and it was the last test taken that day. Mr Salmon: It may be that it applied to a very small quantity. The legislation with regard to the sale of food and drugs is peculiar in that it throws an absolute liability upon any person who sells auv food or drug not up to standard. It requires, with regard to the sale of milk under the Act, that it should not contain any added water nor any other added substance. It is an