LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1499, 23 July 1912, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

■ LOWER COURT., MILK INSPECTOR'S METHOD. UNDER HOT FIRE. HEALTH DEPARTMENT A6AIN. (Before Mr. W. 0. Biddell, S.M.)

The methods of an officer of th» Health. Department were made the subject of a, number of questions during the hearing of some cases in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Those cases had arisen out of the prosecution of several milk-sellers for having fold adulterated milk. In each instance the milk had been sold to Carl Albert SduyueT, an inspector under the Sale of i'ced anil Drugs Act. Inspector put his Hands in the Milk. Tho first case was that in which James li'. Jepson was charged with having sold milk which contained water and boron compounds to Inspector Sehauer. Inspector Schauer deposed that on June G lie had purchased a pint of milk from Mrs. Jepson, wife of the defendant. Mrs. Jepson had taken the pint of milk from a five-gallon can, having previously agitated the. contents. , Ho had paid 2d., and in making tho purchase had informed Mrs. Jepson of tho purpose for which he required the milk. Mr. Myers, counsel for the defendant: When you take a sample from a fivcgaflon can,, using a bottle, does your hand get in. the milk? Witness: Sometimes—yes. I)o you call that a decent method of taking a sample?—"ln milking, milk is handled." .1 ask you os a public health officer if that is a decant mothod?—"lf one's hands are clean." Witness added that ho saw that his hands were clean, and that he carried a special towel with him. Is that mothod of yours of putting your hands into the milk known to the Department?—"l don't know.'' Mr. Myers :Wcll, I hope there is somebody thoro who does know. What did you Mean by Swearing—?" Did you pay for this milk?—"l tendered Is., and sho had no change, and would not go upstairs for it." What did you mean by .swearing that you purchased it, and that you.paid twopence for it —"That was a mistake." . • Did she not tell you that she had no' change?—"No; she said that she would have to go upstairs for change." Seeing that you have already made one egregious mistake, don't you think you may bo making another?—"No; I am not making another." Did yon tell Mrs. Jepson that yon wero going to have the milk analysed by an analyst?—"l told her that I was an inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and that 1 wanted tho sainplo for the purpose.of analysis." What made you say that you paid tho twopence?—" Probably it was owing to the lapse of timo that I made tho mistake." "They Have to Go to the Minister." You took the sample on June 6, and the analyst reported on June 8. Why tho delay in taking proceedings? Witness: "They have to go to the Minister, and it is for him to say if prosecution shall follow."

■ I" suppose you will admit that chemical changes take place in milk in a period of 1G or 18 days, such as elapsed between, tho hiking of the sample and the commencing of tho prosecution —"Yes." And it would be i|uite impossible for a vendor to have an analysis made at the end of 18 days?—" Tea,; certainly.-.'.-i-j' -i-i Do you think 'it-'fair'- .that''- vendors should bo treated in that way?—"lt is in accordance with the Act." Do you think it fair that reports should bo pigeon-holed like that? Bo you know what it costs a vendor to have an analysis made?—" Two guineas, I understand." Mr. Myers: And tho rest! Did the Inspector Talk About One Firm to Another? Do you remember having had any conversation with Mrs. Jepson about tho milk of others you had sampled?—" No." . Did you tell her that the Nutricia Milk Company had been warned several times? -"No." Will'you swear to it?—" Well, I don't remember."

Do you think it proper that an inspector should tell one person the'business of another person?—"l don't remember doing it." ' ' Do you make periodical visits to all the vendors, or pick cut certain ones?—"l take them all as they come." Do you think that there is any shop which you liavo not been at lor the last six years?—"l don't think so." Do you know tho Cambridge Dairy?— "Where is it?" ■ Oh, don't tell me you don't know where it is? It is in Kent Terrace.—"l have been (here once, I think."' When you go to take samples, do you over stay in their houses?—" No." Did you stay at Dugald Thomson's?— "Yes." Witness add<»] that this was when ho was taking samples in the neighbourhood, samples which were for experimental purposes. ."Salutary Effect on Department." Mr. Myers asked the Court to dismiss the information. The Act permitted inspectors to take a snmple on payment or tender. In this case there had been no tender. ' Tender of Is. was not tender when the price was twopence. There must be tender of the "current market value of the sample." Tender of a larger sum out ot which a debtor required change was not tender of a smaller sum. Mr. Myers added that he hoped that what had transpired in a recent case against tho Fresh I'ood and Ice Co. in this case, and what would transpire in a case to follow, would have a salutary effect upon that Department, which should have a salutary effect iinon His public. The Court reserved its decision. Second Case: Department Spared a • Condemnation. A ca.se in whach the Nutrieia- Milk Company was charged with having sold milk which contained water was then taken. In tln'.s ca*>, also, Mr. Mvers was counsel for the defendant. " • " In his evidence, Schauer stated that tho milk was supplied to him by Mrs. Burke, at defendant's shop.- In reply to questions, ho said that lie was positive on the point. Subsequently, he produced (lie sample, and on the bottle was noted tho fact that Miss Burke had supplied tho milk. He said thai, he had informed the vendor's agent of the purpose for whicli tho milk was wanted. Alice Burke, who stated that, she was in the employ of tho Nutricia Milk Company, gave evidence to the effect that Schauer had not told her the purpose for which lie wanted tho milk. He had tendered a half-crown, and she'had given him 2s. Id. in change. .Mr. Myers contended that he had no case to answer. He said that Scanner's evidence could not b» ncccpted; he had made several mistakes. It made him wonder when he heard of these, mistakes how many people had been convicted through no fault of their own. His Worship dismissed -tho information on the point Hint the requisite, warning had not been given to tho vendors' agent Sub-Inspector Shcehan: Will your Worshii) dismiss it without prejudice? Mr. Myers: I thiidc that the sub-inspec-tor would be well advised to leave it where it is. The Health Department has been spared a condemnation which it would otherwise receive.

Two Vendors Fined, Charles .loliu Duffy was charged with having sold Inspector Schauer mill; which contain preservative, to wit, boron campounds equivalent to 10 grain l ; of h.nie acid per K'jllon. Mr. E. K. Kirkcahlie appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not. canity, and Mr. 11. 11. Ostler represented the Department. In the Course of hi? evidence Dr. M'l/mrirt said that t.ho analysis had been made by a Mr. Donovan, who was employed in his Department. Mr. KirUcaklie submitted that the.in.formafay- should iispjfiasA" P* _ thft

prescribed form had not been followed in the issuing of t\i certificate of analysis. His Worship replied that this was not a. sufficient ground for dismissal. Mr. ICirkcaldie then called tlie defendant, Unify, who Rave evidence that Schausr had not. stated to him tho purpose for which he was taking the. milk. Witness had had the milk tested for water before the sample had been taken, and had found it good. It would have b?en impossible to test for preservative without delaying the sale of the milk by two days. It would not havo been possible to have pot a warranty with tho milk. It would not have occurred to him to look for preservative in milk .at this time of the yrur as clean, pure milk would now keep fresh for at least three or four days. Duffv was convicted and fined £2 with costs (\£2 Os. fid.). Leave to appeal was granted. In a. caw in which Frederick Pethoriek was fined J.'ll with co-ts {£2 Os. 6d.) on a charge of fairing Fold milk which contained water, Mr. 11. S. Macbell. who appeared for the defendant, stated that (ho city milk vendors wore very much in the hands of tho people from whom they got the milk, and that so far as this (s.-e was concerned his client had not adulterated the milk, and had oven n.-ked the inspector if he wonted a sample of if. .

AN EVERGREEN QUERY. HOTEL LAW. WHAT IS A PUBLIC BAR?

The evergreen query—What is a public bo r?—reappeared in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Tho case was ono in which Margaret M'lntosh, licensco of tho Royal Tiger Hotel, was charged with having employed Milly Wilson, who was not registered as a barmaid, in tiie bar of the hotel while the bar was open for the sale of liquor. •Sub-Inspector Sheehan represented the police, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared tor the defendant. It was admitted by the defendant that Milly Wilson was not registered as a. barmaid. Sergeant Kntlcdge gave evidence that he had visited tho hotel and had there seen Miss Wilson working in tho bar. The private and the public bar were one in the sense that a person could at the same time look after both bars. Mr. Wilford said that under Section 36 of tho Act of 1910 women who wero not registered should not sorvo in or about a bar. "Bar" must bo read as defined by the principal Act. This definition was found in Section 1 of the Act of 1001, where it was said: "Public bar" or "bar" means any room, postage, or lobby open immediately to any street, etc., wherein tho public may enter and purchase liquors. Mr. Wilford stressed the words "open immediately .to the street," and said that the bar in which Miss Wilson was said to hare served could not be deemed to! be a public, bar as it did not "open immediately" on to the street, as there wero two doors between tho bar and the street. One door would bare been sufficient, but in • this case there were two. His Worship: Apparently the definition of "a bar" has never been altered since 1881, and the construction of hotels has altered considerably since then. His Worship dismissed the information. He added that it seemed that there was no proof that tho place in which Miss Wilson had serrcd was a public bar. Sub-Inspector Sheehan: There is only ono public bar in tho whole of Wellington your Worship.

OTHER CASES. For having broken prohibition orders, John M'Vicar was fined £i, and Patrick Thomas O'Neill was fined .£3. For having, driven a cart at night without a light, Laurenco Hamlin was ordered to pay Court costs (75.). John Cotter pleaded not guilty' to a charge of his having driven a vehicle over Waterloo Quay railway crossing when a railway engine, was approaclung. His Worship said that tho onus was on defendant to know, that a train was apiproaching. The crossing was a dangerous one, and a penalty would be imposed— as much as a warning to others as a punishment of defendant. Cotter was ordered to pay costs (i!l 55.). Harry Pearco was sentenced to three weeks' "imprisonment for having disobeyed a maintenance order mado by the Court. Fourteen, days' grace was allowed Pearce. George Stephens was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment for having disobeyed a maintenance order which the Court had made.

Jesse Harlen was ordered to contribute 17s. 6d. per week towards tho support of Ms wife. For insobriety, William Shaw and Philip Angel were each fined 10a. George Selway and Alexander Collins were each fined JBI, and Thomas Waters was fined £2, for Ifovin; used threatening behaviour in Manners Street. Thomas O'Sullivan was fined <£3 for having assaulted Patrick Duffy. Vera. Nelson was charged with having assaulted George Godden in Courtenny Place on Saturday night. It was alleged that Nelson hod struck Godden over the pro with a bottle during a rumpus outside, a restaurant, after supper. Nelson, wli» pleaded not guilty, wns represented bv Mr. H. F. O'Leary. .At the conclusion of the evidence, his Worship remarked that he did not think that any jury would convict the defendant. The information was dismissed.