ADULTERATED MILK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 253, 13 July 1918, Page 12

ADULTERATED MILK

-T » DAIRY FARMER CONVICTED

A NOMINAL PENALTY

INFLICTED

■Reserved judgment 'was delivered by Mr. F. Y. Frazer, S.U., yesterday afternoon in tho case in which James Munro Bertram, dairy farmer, of Makarn, was proceeded against by F. W. Jfawlinsou (Inspector of the Health Department) on an information of having, on November 2li, 1917, sold adulterated milk to tho Wellington Dairy Farmers' Association, Ltd., tho specific adiilteraliou alleged bi!ing a deficiency iu milk fat.

Jhe only point in dispute, said His Worship, was whether the informant could succeed when a sample from only one ciin, out of a number of cans of milk, had been taken and analysed. For • the defence it had been contended that the sample should havo been taken from the bulk, or at all events, that samples should have been taken from each can and mixed before analysis. It had been urged that Iho contract between the vendor and Ihe purchaser contemplated the dolivpry of a specified number of gallons of milk, not of a specified number of cans. In fairness to the defendant, added His Worship, it must, bo said that he gave a reasonable explanation of the matter. His cuvs wore machine milked, ,and the which contained a greater percentage of milkI'at, were taken by hand. The result was that if a bucket of shippings was emptied into a can partly filled with ma-chine-drawn milk, the contents of that can would show a much higher percentage of milk-fat than would be tho caseii the can contained machine-drawn milk onlv.

The defendant denied that the milk was iu any way tampered with, and suggested that the can from which the informant took a sample contained only machine-drawn milk, without Iho addition of ils due proportion of shippings, which would be found in another can. .There was no dofiuite proof on either side as to the contents of tho remaining cans. His Worship said ho must hqld that the can sampled by the informant contained adulterated milk. There may have been a contract for the delivery of BO gallons of milk, but he must rule that the delivery of a number of cans of milk which contained unadulterated niiik,' and a can or cans containing adulterated milk, did not satisfy the requirements of the law, oven though the total lontents, when mixed together, might comply with fee standard, and make GO gallons of milk. If might 'oo that the defendant relied on the Dairy Farmers' Association mixing the contents of the can before delivering the milk to retail oustomors, but that was a matter which could not inh'uence tiis decision. Defendant's duty was to sec that each soparato can contained "milk," that is, milk containing at least 3.25 per contum of milt-fat. The t'aot that 'the coutente of a number of cans, if mixed together, would produce a subaiance properly described, as milk, could not relieve him of his re-, eponsibility if one of tho cans did not contain milk, properly as 6ueh.

Defendant was convicted and fined £2 and coste =£1 Ss. ■

"It is not suggested," said His Worship, "that any water had been added to (he milk, or that defendant's story is untrue, and for these- 1 reasons I have decided to inflict what is, in the- circumstances, ii nominal penalty." Security for appeal was fixed at ,£lO. .At the hearing of Iho case, .Mr. ,T. Prondoville appeared for the, informant, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant.