IMPURE MILK

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2908, 21 October 1916, Page 6

IMPURE MILK

HEAVY FINES INFLICTED

YESTERDAY'S PROSECUTIONS

Mr. W. G. Ridded S.M., was on the Bonch at tho S.M. Court yesterday when several of the milk cases wore' called. Two cases were completed and the remaining ones were adjourned till Friday, October 27. In ono of the cases fines' and expenses totalling £17 10s. were inflicted.

The first caso taken was against Jinnie Foglia, a married woman, who has a small shop in. To„ry Street. She was charged with having sold milk whioh was not pure. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for defendant and Mr. V. It Meredith,'of the Crown Law conducted tho prosecution in all tho casos.

G.A. Lawrence, inspector undor tho I'.oods and Drugs Act, gave evidence m regard to taking tho samples of milk which defendant said at the timo sho was obtaining for Henry Bodloy and Sons. At tho time tho inspection took place thero was nothing to show that the milk was impure or deficient m milk fat; but subsoquenfc tests revealed, those facts. Mr. Jackson, stated that his client had purchased tho milk in question from H. Bodley and Sons, twico daily, and at _ tho time tho inspection was niado hiscliont was in the act of pouring tho milk out of Bodley's cans into li«r oim bubfcets. It.was most unlikely that that Mrs. Foglia would skim tho PJiilk in the can and thus reduce its quality. As a matter of fact it was practically. impossible to do so. Ho held that his client could not bo responsible for tho composition of tho milk in question. Defendant in evidence corroborated her solicitor's remarks and added that she had no khowlcdgo of testing milk andhad acted in ignorance. Sfio had received the milk in good faith from her supplier.

Mr. Meredith did,not ask for a very heavy penalty in this case, but said that, a warning should bo givon. After detailing, at .length tho procedure of testing milk, His Worship said that he was of tho opinion that defendant must bo convicted. Evidently she had acted in ignorance, but tho onus was on lier to seo that the milk was up to standard. A fine of 40s. was imposed, together with analyst's fee, 10s. 6d., Court costs 75., and solicitor's foe £1 Is.

Wellington Dairy Co.'s Case. Four similar charges were preferred against tho Wellington Dairy Cbm.pany, for whom Mr. M. Myers appeared. Eichard Henry AVilliams, a director of the company, garo evidence as to where themilk was obtained. Ho said that, in his experience sometimes milk depreciated while it was being served to customors becauso it had not been stirred up. ' He had also known of perfectly genuine milk to' bo under tho standard when taken from a certain breed of cow. In these cases the milk was deficient of fat as it was claimed bv the prosecution his samples had been.

, Mr. Myers said tha-6 although tho offence was admitted the milk had not been tampered with in. any way whatever. The apparent cause of the defect had been traced to tho milk not being stirred up on the farm. He contended that this was not a case of adulteration; it was simply a natural defect in tho milk, tho cause of which had been explained. Mr. Meredith, in pressing for a heavy penalty, said that the case against the Wellington Dairy Company was,totally; different: to that against Mrs. Foglia. The Wellington Dairy Company was a big milk vendor—tho biggest in Wellington. In the samples taken during the past two months thore was an undue proportion showing under the standard of fat necessary. Tho company was not a first offender by any means.. It knew its duty under the act, and 1 it must keep its milk up to standard and comply with' the Act or taken the consequences. He asked for a substantial penalty.

His Worship, in delivering judgment, said that the company had sold milk which had not complied! with the standard, and the standard in this particular was efficiency. Thoro was no suggestion that' water had been added to the milk, and tho milk mig'nt have been quite genuine but of low standard. _ However, it all came back to the point that the, vender was icsponsible, and it was his duty to make such tests whioh would relieve him of his liability, under the Act. Tho use of the lactometer was not sufficient to clear vendors of. this liability. ' Tests should be made every day with the instrument, as well as tho Babcock tester. Defendants would be convicted on the first charge, and fined £5, together with costs amounting to £1 18s. 6d.

Mr. Meredith pressed for a penalty on the other three charges, which were also admitted, and His Worship fined the company £3 on each charge, together.with 31st 6d. analyst's fees.

Another Fine. His Worship also gave judgment in the. case of Walter Galloway, whose case was hoard on October 16. After reviewing the evidence, a conviction was recorded, and a- fine, of £3 imposed.