DAIRY COMPANY FINED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 46, 26 February 1935, Page 7

DAIRY COMPANY FINED

BREACH OF REGULATIONS CHURNING WHEY BUTTER. DEPAh’T.M ENT’S SERIOUS VIEW. The Okoia Dairy Factory Co., Ltd., was prosecuted in the Magistrate’s •Court at Wanganui yesterday morning by the Agricultural Department (Dairy Produce Division) for having used the same churn for both creamery and whey butter. ami for having placed on packages sent to the Oastlecliff Grading Stores a statement that was conrary to fact. Mr. J. 11. .Salmon, S.M., who presided, imposed fines of £2 on two charges concerning the first offence and of £5 on each o f two charges relating to the second offence. Mr, N. R. Bain Crown prosecutor, represented the department, and said that a serious view was taken of the charge. It was not desired that a substantial penalty should be imposed, but a penalty that would mark the gravity of the case. Mr. J. M. Hussey appeared for the defendant company, and said that his clients had no guilty mind with regard to the charges, but pleaded guilty because they were bound by the actions of ono of their employees, who had since been discharged. Two charges stated that the company. being registered as both a creamery. and whey butter factory, had used the same churn for both creamery and whey butter on October 31, 1934, ‘ and November 22, 1934. The other two charges stated that the company, before sending packages of whey butter to the Castlccliff Grading Store, caused to be placed on them a mark, indication or statement which was capable of bearing false implication, namely that the contents were included in a first churning whereas they were included in the second churning. Department’s case. Mr. Bain said that the department regarded the offences most seriously. The first two charges related to the manufacture of whey butter in a creamery churn. Such a practice, it had been found, resulted in creamery butter being given a distinct flavour which was practically impossible to eradicate, and regulations had therefore been made to prevent such practice. These, obviously, were to insure that dairy produce of the highest possible marketable value would be sent Home to compete with the products of other dairy producing countries. Considerable difficulty had been experienced with the company, which should have been aware that the regulations were net being observed. When j the regulations were first applied in 11952, the company was informed that lit would be required to purchase a (churn for the making of whey butter. That was done, but on April 1, 1933, the director of the dairy division wrote •to the secretary of the company pointing out that the churn for whey but■ter was not being used but that the whey butter was being made in the same churn as that used for creamery I butter. The secretary replied that he (was unaware of the practice, but that ■ he would place the matter before the directors. After that meeting he had (written stating that the whey butter churn had been leaking, and that the creamery churn was being used while repairs were being effeced. Notwithstanding that correspondence, the breaches definitely took place. With regard to the false mark, Mr. Bain submitted that a deliberate attempt had been made to induce the (Government grader to believe that the regulations had been complied with. Butter containers wore supposed to I bear indications of the date of the (churning and the number of churnings, 'because several churnings might take place in a day. The Government grader | might take a sample from each churn, j and if the churnings were correctly marked he graded each churning. If the markings were not observed then the whole grading system was nullified, and butter might be sent to the British market which was not up to standard. The department took a serious view of the matter because of the difficulty of ascertaining breaches of this nature. It had been made easier in this case because it had been stated that the number of boxes in one case had been eight or nine in a separate churning, whereas in point of fact, the whey butter churn could manufacture only five boxes at a time.

Company’s Explanation. Mr. Hussey, for the company, said that a plea of guilty had been entered j because the law provided an absolute probation against such offences. There was, however, no question of guilty mind. There wore, he continued, three churns in the factory, two for creamery butter, having a capacity of 40 to 45 boxes at a limo, and a whey butter churn with a capacity of five boxes. It was the. duty of an employee to put the butter in the churns, and to keep a tally of all butter made and to place on the boxes the churning and the date of churning. Samples were then taken I from the boxes by the Government I grader. When the notice was given that the whey butter was to be made in a separate churn, definite instructions were given by the manager. Some butter was returned from the wharves apparently with an excess of i moisture, indicating that the employee, | instead of putting the butter back in | the whey churn, had worked it up in the creamery churn to save time. That I occurred on December 22. On the same day instructions were given to the .employee to put certain boxes in the | freezer overnight and Io have them properly churned the next day. This was done end later five boxes were returned from the grader. The employee was told to use one a day for churning with the whey butter, but this was not done either, and the five were put into the creamery churn. Shortly afterwards he committed another breach and was discharged. Following his dismissal, he laid information against, the company to the department. No Guilty Mind. “Although we have no guilty mind, wo are bound by that man’s acts,” continued Mr. Hussey. ”1 submit that under the circumstances we should not bo penalised for the act of this man.” Mr. Bain: I feel bound to say that I cannot accede to my friend’s statement of the facts. In addition to the letters referred to I must say that the manager asked the directors whether he could manufacture whey butter in the creamery churn. That permission was refused. This statement about the employee has been made in his absence, 1 and your worship has any doubt, at all. I I suggest that he should bp allowed to • tell his own story. Mr. Salmon: If he were the guilty

party, he would not be willing to admit it. Mr. Bain pointed out that at the time the disclosure was made the employee in question had just secured his dairy manager’s certificate, and felt his position might, be imperilled if he did not inform the inspector. He had offered to do so twice in the manager’s presence, but the manager had refused to be present. “It is impossible for the court to weigh or determine the exact degree of culpability which should rest upon the defendant company and upon the employee, but in these charges the Court is concerned only with the public effect of these breaches,” said-Mr. Salmon when imposing the fines. “There is no doubt that breaches of the regulations have a serious effect upon the industry in England and other countries. L think, therefore, that the regulations must be enforced with some penalty which will at least draw attention of companies to the necessity of obeying the regulations. In this case the Crown does not ask for very heavy penalties. On the first two charges the company will be convicted and fined £2 and costs, and on the. two second charges, which 1 regard as more serious, they will be convicted and fined £5 on each charge.” Costs on each charge totalled 10s, and solicitor’s fee amounted io £3 13s fid.