WATERED MILK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 288, 24 August 1918, Page 8

WATERED MILK

STRONG WARNING FROM THE BENCH

DAIRYMAN FINED £50

HEAVY PENALTY IN ANOTHER CASE

"I can't seo any moral distinction between a man who. charges 3d. a pint for milk which is part water and tlio case of a man who is guilty of false pretences," observed Jlr. .l'\ V. I'razer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, during tho course of the hearing of a milk prosecution. His Worship iiassed soma very strong strictures regarding the practice of adulterating milk, a matter which he said, was becoming worse instead of better. Tho sooner milk vendors realised that to add water to milk was a' criminal offence the better it would be for everybody. Mr. I'razer said he hoped tho vendors would take a warning, for in futuro where the cases were proved to bo serious he would not fcii to send tho offend- : ers to prison. In one caso heard yester-. ' day Mr. Frazc-r inflicted a fine of .£SO, and in another a penalty of l£2o. Tho first caso heard was that in which Harry Lake, a dairyman, was charged with having sold milk to which water had been ,-.dned, and with having failed to notify the purchaser of the nature of tho adulteration. Mr. J. I'rendeville, of tho Crown Law Office, prosecuted, and Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for tho defendant, j Mr. Prendeville said tho- case had peculiar features. Inspector F. \V. Rnwlinson was obstrubted by defendant when ho went to take a sample from defendant's cart, on which there was a can of water. I ' Mr. Blair: No. not water. ■ His Worship: What do you say it was— milk and water? (Laughter.) Mr. Blair: No. condensed milk with water added. / Mr. I'rendeville said the analysis showed that the sample contained 28 per cent, of added water. The Health Department took a serious view of the caso, and he was instructed to ask for a severe penally. • • Mr. Blair said there was no doubt that the evidence in the case was different from ordinary' prosecutions. Tho caso ■was remarkable in that the defendant admitted having added water to the milk. Lake had been in business for about twelve years, and had recently acquired the lioseneath portion of a business.' He had made arrangements with a. firm of milk suppliers to supply him with sulhcicnt milk for bis round. The quantity he required was from 110 to 120 gallons per day, but without any notice his supplies were suddenly cut down to 50 gallons. He then did a very foolish thing. In order to supply all his customers lie decided to make an artificial milk by mixing water with condensed milk. The mixture was used to make up lor the shortage. Seeing tho inspector coming along he knew that he would not be ablo to supply the mixture, and he took steps to avoid trouble. For that oflence lie had already been fined. Counsel admitted that the attempt to make milk was rather feeble. Defendant had tho whole of his money in the business, ;and stood to lose virtually all he had. Being lett hi°h and- dry without sufficient supplies Lako had done a thing which lie would not have done it ho had meditated properly upon the consequences. In the course of cross-examination by Mr. Prendeville, defendant said lie had previously been fined <225 for a prosecntion under the Salo of lood and Drugs 4.ct ' ' Inspector Uawlinson said he took the sample which formed tho subject of tho prosecution at Kilbirnie. When delendant and a man who was with him came, along they ran into a section to lime. "RATHER A HAD CASE." "This appears to be rather a h:ul case," said Mr. Frazer. It was a■deliberate ollencci in which the defendant was caught in the act. He might have had trouble in getting supplies, but lie should not have attempted' to pass that on to his customers. 1 cannot see any moral distinction between a man who charges 3d. for a pint of milk part, watei and tho caso of a man who is guilty ot false pretences. Defendant will be sentenced to fourteen days" hard labour on the first charge, and will bo convicted and discharged on the second. His Worship also ordered that conviction should be advertised in the P Mr.' Blair asked that on account of the delicato state of tho health of deiendant's wife the penalty be made le»a 1 don't'see that I should take any notice of that,", replied Mr. Irner. i "This is a criminal offence, and it is about time people regarded it as suet. Mr. Prendeville and Inspector Itawhiison both stated that they understood tho defendant's wife suffered from heart trouble, and that the shock of defendant belly taken away from her might ha\o a serious effect. , "Ordinarily I don t like to send a man to gaol unless 1 can help ".but really tliis is ft typo of case in. which it is necessary to deal strictly with this sort of thing, not only for the punishment of the offender, but a 9 atnmung to others," remarked His Worship. I his milk trouble does not seem to be getting any better. It is getting worse ifanything, and the sooner these milk dors reaise that this is a criminal offence, mid will bo dealt w tl. as a criminal olfence, Iho better it will be for everybody. Still, where the inspector himself 'bears out the statement as to the man's wife's condition, perhaps imprisomnent .might have some eeir effect on her. Not because .1. think that I should have done so at the start, but because of tho circumstance*. that m o Wn detailed in regard to tho wife, 1 shall 'strike out the order as to imprisonwnf to start ft practice whichflight do other milk vendors will take a warning, said Mr.Fra«r in conelusion "If it had not been for what w.» n i,a,l fiir bv tho inspector, Loko and Drugs Act. "A THIN EXCUSE." Tho second case heard was that in which Mrs C. Soloman was charged with Bellii'" milk to which water had been idded" and with failing to notiiv the purchaser of the nature ot the adullcrat! Defendant's husband appeared and entered a plea of guilty. He explained that the vessel containing the milk had been placed in a trough of water to cool and the water overflowed. Mr. I'rendeville, who. prosecuted, said tho milk sampled contained 18 per cent, if "added water. Beyond that tU was „othin ,f spocifti ftbout the cjisc. His Worship: Well. ,18. per cent, b r«vL strong-ai least.. Us, rather »eak think lUcouklI U coukl invent a J think the explanation is almost as cosUwas imposed, and the conviction, was ordeied to bo advertised in tlio newspaper. MILK SHOULD HE tESTKD. Tn the last case tho defendant was Dennis Sullivan, who was chniwl »wu having sold adulterated milk wit.ionc -nforming ihe purchaser of tne tact. Mr I'rendeville said the milk m question wa slummed. and the farmer from whom defendant had obtained hw «<,- nlies had ton hncd lor tne milk not being up to standard. The .case was merely one of a vendor receiving mi k and liot testing it to. sec that it was up to the standard required by law. His Worship said it was the duty of all milk vendors to test their milk before selling it. That was «nfe"iinrd, and should lie can ltd out i verv even if it did mean delay m supplying customers. Vendors took tho responsibility that what they retailed was up to standard. Defendant was fined .£2, with costs XI 18s. Gd., but His Worship said tho fact of the conviction need not bo advertised.