MILK VENDOR FINED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 200, 25 August 1936, Page 5

MILK VENDOR FINED

BUTTER-FAT DEFICIENCY CO I NSEL'S EXPLANATION' • A charge of selling milk deficient in ■ butterfat was preferred against the 1 I Model Dairy Company before Mr. J. I H. Salmon, S.M., in the Wanganui ''Magistrate’s Court yesterday. ’ • George Fear, sanitary inspector, j | employed by the Wanganui City , Council and a duly accredited officer ' I under the Health Act, said that he ; i bought a bottle of milk from the de- | fendant company's own dairy in In- ’ i gestre Street on July 8. In accord ’ I with regulations under the Food and i Drugs Act he had forwarded that ’•sample to the Dominion Analyst at ’ i Wellington, and the result of his test j i was contained in the certificate in . I Court, which formed the basis of the ’ charge. ♦ Cross-examined by Mr. B. C. Hagi I gitt. who appeared for the defendant .'company, witness said that he had ’ : taken the sample in the ordinary . .course of his duty. He had frequent- .' ly visited the company’s dairy at ■ ' Rapanui. [I Mr. Haggitt: And it is what it. is J said to be, a model dairy?—Yes, but •I it is not isolated in that respect. ! I There are other dairies equal. ; [ Further cross-examined, witness . said that he had frequently taken other tests of Model Dairy milk, such ; as the reductase test. So far as those » tests were concerned the milk was up - to standard. In this case the milk ,* was not deficient in milk solids other i ! than butterfat. ,! Mr. Haggitt: There is no suggestion -'of water being added? —No. ; j His Worship: There is no sugges II tion of that at all. i 1 Mr. Fear, questioned by Mr. Hag- , ; gitt, described the practice followed at - the Model Dairy, whereby the milk . was taken through piping from the ■ machines to a ten gallon vat and was i cooled. It was possible that that vat ? had filled before the strippings from I the cows got into it. Mr. Haggitt: And. as I understand •' the strippings are the richest part of - j the milk in butterfat, it is possible ’ ( that the next vat full, which containI I ed the strippings, would be corres--11 pondingly high in per ccntage of butterfat?—Yes. it is possible. ’ ' Mr. Haggitt: And that could quite easily be a reasonable explanation of ' a vat full being low in butterfat?— ’ Yes. Witness said he had taken samples ; from other Model Dairy bottles and ’ they had all complied with the test. Booker, cowboy; Keith Stewart, Charlie Chaplin; Roe Newland, . Indian; Robert Quayle, Charlie Chap- ? lin; Ernest Clover, “Why did I kiss I that Girl?” i Visiting children included Mary J MacKenzie, Shirley Temple; Eileen i, Bourke. Indian squaw; Helen Wilson : (Waitotara), ranee; Sylvia Palmer . (Patea), Old English; Fred Clark, > gollywog; Charlie Clark, sailor; Betty Clark, butterfly; Joan Clark, black s I cat; Mary Chateris, Queen of Hearts; t Claire Hoskins, Mrs. Gamp; Pat Hosy kins. Early Victorian; R. Clark, coti, ton reel; E. Bates, Hawiian; B. Mcn I Glade, frog; M. Gifkins, jockey; D. ;-1 Oarsman, Red Riding Hood; D. Aiken, s Victorian; E. Southcombe, aeroplane ; girl; M. Quayle, baking powder; H. ; Bradley, bride; T. Bradley, jockey; D. If Haycock, flower girl; Girling, foot- ;; bailer; S. How, rajah; U. Marriot, night; M. How, pierrot; G. How, l- Dutcfy boy; P. Bradley, Irish colleen; h D. Walker, penguin; O. Christenson, y Victorian; Lambie, flower girt

Mr. Haggitt: From your knowledge generally of the milk trade, can you say whether sealed bottle milk is cleaner than milk left open?—l wouldn’t like to answer that question. His Worship ruled that the question was not relevant to the prosecuiion. Witness had purchased the sample bottle concerned in the charge from Mr. Allen, manager of the company, who had said, from a look at it, that it was “a low cream line.” Mr. Haggitt: But he was quite fair about it and sold you that bottle? — Yes.

Asking that the .matter he treated merely as a technical offence, Mr. Haggitt stressed the fact that, there was no question of water having been added. The defendant company had set itself out to render a service which maintained the highest possible standard of purity, efficiency and cleanliness. The system it had adopted had the recommendation of Professor Riddett, and the approval of the Health Department, Agricultural Department and City Council. During the four years it had been in operation trade had increased by nearly 75 per cent. Mr. Fear had stated that he had tested milk from this company by other tests and had found it complied with the regulations. He admitted that the vat getting full before the strippings entered it was a reasonable cause of one lot being low in butterfat and the next would be correspondingly high. On the day in question when the one bottle sample was taken the company had bol.tled 2119 bottles.

“It is quite true that there is no suggestion of this milk being adulterated, said the Magistrate, in imposing the penalty. “The case before me as one in which a sample contains less than the amount of butterfat prescribed by the regulations, and no less than 16.9 per cent, has been removed. It may be that the explanation given for the deficiency is the correct one, and that this was an isolated case. But I am not concerned with that, but with the deficiency in butterfat and breach of the regulations.” A fine of £4 was imposed, with Court costs 10s and analyst's fee 10s 6d.