ALLEGED DIRTY MILK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 74, 20 December 1917, Page 10

ALLEGED DIRTY MILK

MILK SUPPLY LTD. FINED. "Tho term 'clean' applied to jjjilk occurring in tho regulations made under the Sale of Food-and Drugs Act, 1908 (Consolidated Statutes), is a comparative ten*, and, in the milk trade, has acquired a definito meaning v hereby milk containing not more than 00 parts of dirt to a million parts of .nilk is deemed clean. Paragraph 12 of Part II of tho said regulation is neither ultra vires nor bad for uncertainty. Where milk is dean when leaving a jiiiik fac- [ tory, and after one hour aud fifty minutes' travel on the highways is found to contain ISO parts of dirt to a million parts of milk it cannot be said the vendor of such milk has taken all reasonable steps within tho meaning of section 13 of the Act, more particularly when tho average of dirt for the place where tho sale was effected is 'J6 parts of dirt to a million of milk, Tho onus of proving that such reasonable steps have been taken rests on the vendor of the milk" was the substance of a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrate's Cpiurt yesterday by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in the ease of Frederick William Jlawlinson, inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, against the Milk Supply Ltd. The information alleged that the company had sold unclean milk. The inspector obtained the samplo from an employee, of the compaiiv, and the employee .was told that the sample was required for analysis. The analysis disclosed 150 parts of dirt per million of milk. The milk left tho defendant company's premises at 4.30 a.m., and the sample was taken at 6.20

Counsel for defendant raisod file following contentions(l) That 1l;e regulations relating to the cleanliness of milk are ultra vires; (2) assuming that the regulations are intra! vires ihey are vague and uncertain; (3) assuming that the regulations are hoth intra vires and certain, the defendant company has taken all reasonable steps within the meaning of section 13 of flic Sale of Food and Drugs Aot. After reviewing the defence ■ the Magistrate said that if the milk was not clean when it left the company's factory then it had either not been tested for dirt or the test was a very perfunctory one. If, on the contrary, the milk was clean, then either t"ho receptacles were dirty or deficient or there was great negligence in the method of distribution. ' 'It cannot reasonably bo held fee defendant company had taken all reasonable steps to prevent a breach of the law." The coApany was convicted and fined £15 and ordered to pay costs f'S 19s. 6d. Security on appeal was fixed at £25. At the hearing Mr. ,T. Pretidevilie appeared for the Health Department, and Mr. M. Myers for the fefondant company.