Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

TAIHAPE

ADULTERATED MILK Charges of selling watered milk and milk deficient in milk solids other than milk fat, last July, were preferred against Albert Leighton at the monthly sitting of the Taihape Magistrate’s Court on Thursday. Defendant was fined 12 on each of the two charges, but the magistrate remarked after hearing the evidence that he was satisfied that defendant had not wilfully tampered with the milk. Mr. T. C. Kincaid appeared for Leighton, while Sergeant J. M. Mcßae conducted the prosecution for the police, who acted for the Health Department. Mr. W. H. Roy, health inspector at ■ Taihape, was the first witness. He said [that he took a sample of the milk and | forwarded it to the Dominion analyst. [He also gave one sample to the vendor and kept one for himself. The bottle given to defendant was marked “No. 9,” but he changed the number on the bottle sent to the Government analyst to “No. 10,” as he found, on consulting his records, that No. 9 had already been taken. The milk in question was not from Leighton’s own cows, and had been obtained from a person who supplied Leighton with milk. When the report from the Government analyst was received the milk was found to contain 18 per cent, of added water. Mr. Kincaid: Eighteen per cent, ot added water is phenomenally large?— Yes. Mr. Kincaid: Have you ever found a similar case?—Yes. Mr. Kincaid: When you changed the numbers from,9 to ID was it not right to inform Leighton?—No. In answer to a question Mr. Roy said that he took the sample immediately after the milk had been supplied to Leighton. Defendant’s Evidence Albert Leighton, defendant in the ease, told the Court that he purchased the milk from a certain person on July 12 last. The sample of milk taken was exactly as supplied by the person in question. The health inspector had often taken samples of witness' milk and there had never been any trouble before. Witness had found the milk which he purchased from this particular supplier to be most satisfactory, and customers had specially asked for it. He could not imagine how the water got into the milk, though it was possible it had been left in the cans when they were washed. He never carried water. The person who supplied the milk to Leighton said that he eould not account for the water in the milk. Counsel’s Address Addressing the Court on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Kincaid pointed out that the quantity of added water in the milk was so great that he was convinced that no man would deliberately add so much water. He submitted that, the water got in by mistake. He also thought that the health inspector should have told Leighton that he had altered the number of the bottle containing the sample forwarded to the Government analyst. Counsel contended that Leighton had been placed at a disadvantage in not being notified of the alteration as there was every risk of a mistake. The Magistrate: The numbering of

the samples is an internal matter oetween the inspector and the analyst. Mr. Kincaid: There is a possibility that the sample analysed was not the sample taken from Leighton. No water was added by Leighton, or could possibly have been added. The Magistrate: I don't think that a wilful offence has been committed but the fact remains that there was added water in the milk. The alteration of the numbers was unfortunate as it opens the gate for the possibility of mistakes, but I am satisfied that no mistake occurred in this case and the sample was properly tested, but at the same time I don’t think this is a case of deliberate tampering with milk, but it is plain that the milk was not up to the required strength. Leighton will be fined £2 on each charge, BRIGHT CONCERT A bright concert programme was presented at the Town Hall on Thursday on the occasion of a presentation to the Mayor and Cr. Loader. Mr. C. A. McLaren acted as announcer and also entertained the audience with some of his humorous witticisms, which kept the crowd in a good humour and raised many a hearty laugh. During the evening bouquets were presented to Mesdames de Lautour and Loader by Ngaire Boles. The Taihape Band was in attendance and added to the ejoyment of the programme with bright musical selections. The band also played outside the hall. The programme included the following items:—Song and dance, Ngaire Boles; duet, Mr. Whisker and Mrs. H. Holmes; tap dance, Lance Whisker; song, Miss Harris; pianoforte selection, Miss J. Anderson; dance, Beth Steedman; pianoforte duet, Misses O. Williams and O'Brien; orchestral item, Miss Addis' pupils; duet, Masters Meekings and Montgomery; piano accordeon, Eskil Swedlund; "Seeing the Sights,” Mr. C. A. McLaren and Miss S. Hall (local hits were introduced during this number. The singing of "For They Are Jolly Good Fellows,” followed by "Auld Lang Syne," concluded the programme.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19380829.2.114

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 203, 29 August 1938, Page 10

Word Count
834

TAIHAPE Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 203, 29 August 1938, Page 10

TAIHAPE Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 203, 29 August 1938, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert