WAS THE MILK WATERED?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 938, 4 October 1910, Page 8

WAS THE MILK WATERED?

PROrESSOR E\STERFIELD-SAYS "NO." '

CASE ; AT,'THE ■ MAGISTRATES COURT.- \, Tho - Public ■ Health /Department v'pro-' ceeded against. the 'Fresh Food and IceGo, in ithe: Magistrate's Court'.yesterday/ before :■ Mr.;.:-AV. G. Eiddell, S.-M.,.;0n a charge 1 p£. selling milk 1 on .August 10 that contained a to , : wit, water, the addition ■of .which is prohibited. :Mr..H-./. H, Ostler conducted the .Case for the Department,"- and■ ■ Hon. : :,T. : ,W. , Hislop appeared for the defendant company. ' Mr., Ostler remarked' that the inforina-. tion ; was based, on, the .Sale.' of iiFobd i and. Drugs l . Act. ,■; 'The,: analyst's : ." certificate showed that , . >the inilk contained'...-13 "per" water. ..■/'.■:; '-,;■■ .'..■/■ ':■''."■. -' : ' : ' .•'■'.Carl Albert .Schauer, I inspector for : the. Department, stated : . .that he. secured; r.a sdmple.of the milk 1 on.the date mentioned; in; |, the; information, * and .when i he::obr tairied it- he was' told'.that the, just as it had.' been . received ] frpiri';' the. cow.: '■'■' '■ He. placed the sample * in- 'three ■ sealed .bottles,; One he-left'with'th'ej'coin-pany,' one iwas.handed; to -Dr.' M'Laiirin',' tlie Government;analyst,. and the 'other was v produced in the Court.;'.': . U -,!,y Foi the defence, .'it was contendedi-that the specifio charge:to.be answered!was the addition of water. to, the milk.'. To. rebut this .Professor . Easterfield, ■ of;.. .Victoria ■ College, , - was. called::,to,state that/heflhad tested; the; sample of milk .left ; the Fresh' 'Food- and'. Ice Co. to find ■ if'wafer had been added. He stated that ho found' that no .water, had been added. >...That was'avscientific' fact.- •■' ■■• '-\y&- ''•'[■ ,Ori account.-of ..the , evidence given I fby I Professor-, Easterlield, Mr.: Ostler asked' for an adiournment, in order, that he might call Dr.'.M'Laiirin..■ The case.was accordingly - adjourned, until' October ;; ; 10.'.'; . ': >■'.. "..'■. ANOTHER CASE. ';[ ,W. W. Crump was charged with selling,' on -August 3,. at! Wellington,'milk adulterated.: .with', water.; ; ; Mr.: A. -.H>>,flind-i marsh, on .behalf oi 1 accused,..entered a ; plea of -..guilty,, but explained, that'-,tlie, milk in questioh had been. purchased by defendant irian emergency, to- supply, his customers-.., His Worship. said that there was ■ a provision in the Act• by which de-. fendant could, have received a guarantee' when- purchasing the milk, and thpre was! therefore no excuse for .him. ' A fino, of. 40s. was imposed, with.'-costs ';78.,;'and ■ analysts's fee,:. 10s. .6d.,'in , default seven days imprisonment.. , : '.'.-. ',; •; ■-,1....';..•■-. ■■. . AVhen the case against the; Fresh' Food and Ice Co. ■ had concluded; Mr. Hind-i marsh applied for,a Cruinp's case, as' Crump' had , purchased .the. milk from thoFresli Food'and'lce' Coi i His Worship directed that the application be; put in -writing.". ■• '..■■' '-~':,'.-;':/ / '-;|'.., :r v