No Excuse For Water Being Added To Milk, Says Magistrate

Wanganui Chronicle, 25 May 1948, Page 2

No Excuse For Water Being Added To Milk, Says Magistrate

“There is an absolute liability on vendors and it is just this sort of accident that the Act is aiming at—there is no excuse for negligence,’’ commented Mr. J. H. Salmon, SM., in the Magistrate’s Court, Wanganui, yesterday, after Stewart Arch Crichton, dairy farmer,, had pleaded guilty through his counsel, Mr. B. C. Haggitt, to a charge of selling milk that did not comply with the standard prescribed, in that it contained added water. As the amount of added water was only 5 per cent., however, it was not a bad case of its kind, the magistrate said, imposing a fine of £4, and costs amounting to £2 10s. Senior - Sergeant F. Culloty, who rosecuted, said that at 8.20 a.m. on March 1 an inspector purchased milk rom defendant’s employee, the purchase being made at the farm gate, where the milk was collected by lorry. Samples were taken and tests showed that the milk contained water. "It may be that water was added carelessly when the cans were being drenched, but on a previous occasion a sample was taken from a can sent by defendant to the treating house and the milk was found to contain added water,” Senior-Sergeant Culloty added. The magistrate: Was defendant prosecuted on fiat occasion? Senior-Sergeant Culloty: There was no prosecution. • The magistrate: I cannot take that into account, then. Mr. Haggitt submitted that in this case defendant wsffi vicariously lia. for the actions of his servant. Defendant owned the farm, but took no part in the actual milking or taking the milk cut to the stands, where it was collected. This was the sole responsibility of an employee. When milking was completed by the machines, water was run through the pipes to force out the milk remaining m them, counsel added Normally, the outflow was watched and the can disconnected from the pipe, but on this occasion the employee was running late and expecting the lorry to arrive at any time. While he was in the act of putting water through the pipes he heard a vehicle approaching and went out to see if it was the lorry, but actually the vehicle he heard was the inspector’s car arriving. While the employee was momentarily absent, however, water ran into one of the cans. Two cans were tested and the milk in one of them was all right. “The percentage of added water was not large and there was no incentive for the employee to add water,” said counsel. "He is on a wages basis and received no percentage of the milk cheques.” The magistrate said that there was an absolute liability on the vendor and the Act aimed to prevent accidents of this nature. They should not be allowed to occur and in similar cases to this he had heard the same defence, but there was no excuse for negligence. Defendant was fined £4. with costs £2 10s, including tne analj'sis fee of £2.