DAIRY DISCLOSURES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 257, 3 November 1906, Page 7

DA IRY DISCLOSURES.

pKCLEAMJXESS AND DISEASE.

•£L, was charged with having kept J? dairy unclean nnd unsanitary, and to notify the* dairy ''urcTlmik'' defended and pleaded guilty to the first <harge. and not guilty to the s rcon(L i ■ ■ t Villiam R. Brown, dairy inspector. ■aid ho visited the accused-, farm on October 2nd- There was a cross-bred ,' com- there winch was very anaemic d Whingagooddeal. Accused said J, knew the cow was two or hrf . P weeks before, and Jip hnd dis,Lcd with his sou the advi«ibility ol taking her down to the scrub and footing her. The cow was evidently and breathing hard. Jt was ID obviou? ea.'c of tuberculosis Thomas .Austin gave formal evidfucP. j- H Brittain suitl when he >u>nt and Hjndero'ncd the v,ny. «h e was xery ill. (1 the post-mortem examination showed thai fhe wa-> tuberculous right throu"li. Anybody with any acquaintance "of cows could have seen that the [ov' was wrong, while she was in the paddock, by her heavy breathing »r.d by the way i" which .-he coughed whenjvoi &hf moved. icctist , " ot oiiih siiiil the inspector hail previously condemned a cow of hi*. jnd he expected he would soon be along r ain. He therefore did not think il ,£s necessary to notify him formally of ;be present cow's condition. The cow bad only recently calved and her milk had not been used for siih-. \ccuscd'? pon. F. Cooiu'v, corroborated, and ?aiJ I" 1 pointed the cow out to thf inspector a> soon ns ho called. lo Mr Mays: I' was true he bad discussed the cow with his lather, and had •aid if the inspector did not come round witbin a week it would be het to take no further risk but to take the cowto the scrub and shoot her. as slje iniilit infect the of the herd. The h>a=ou they had not Used the milk for gale was that she liar! only recently liked, was very poor, nnd ir would hardly be n right thing to sell milk from a cow in her poor .-late. They milked 26 cows altogother.

His Worship Raid it ira necessary tn inflict a punishment that would deter other pi'oplr t'rom comif.itting a similar offence, although he would not impo-e the ma.vimiuii fine or £.~>o.

For the uncleanlincss aiwi~ed was fined £•") and £1 *•' co«ts; ;ind for the fa'lure to notify. £20 and £1 IT.'G.