WATER IN THE MILK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 300, 7 September 1918, Page 9

WATER IN THE MILK

PINE OF £50 IMPOSED

SEVERAL VENDORS PROSECUTED

(Several further cases of milkmen Selling watered milk were heard by Mr.-f. V. Frazer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. It was somewhat'of i coincidence, that in each instance the vendor was stated to have given up his business. In one case a fine of £60 was- imposed.

On the information of F. W. Rawlinison, an inspector under the Sale of [Food and Drugs Act, W. Galloway was accused of having, on July. 18," sold milk containing 9 per cent, of added .water, and , of having failed to notify tho jwrchaser of the nature. 1 of the adulteraitioh. ■ , . . .

Mr. : J. Prendeville appeared for thu prosecution, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for ,the. defendant, entering a plea o£ guilty. . Inspector Rawiinson said that about '4.20 on tho morning of July 18 he approached defendant's cart in Pine Street to take a sample of milk, when lie discovered a one-gallon can threeparts full of jvater. He also came across two other small cans, each of which contained w.ater. The Inspector .told defendant that it looked, suspicious !to be carrying water on a milk cart, a's a number of vendors had adopted the ■method of "dope as you go":as being safer than putting water into the .yhole of tho milk in one 'operation. To 'this Galloway replied that he was niro afraid of the sample that had been taken, and. that ho used the water for cleansing his cans. Inspector Rawiinson pointed out that the Act laid it down that cans must be washed with toiling wator. , Mr. O'Leary said that Galloway carried the water on the cart for the pur■poße of washing his cans. Defendant had since gone , out of business. ■-.'•■ "This appears to be quite a deliberate oase," said Mr. Frazer; "The story •about carrying water to wash the cans seems to mo to'be ridiculous. I have never seen a milkman washing "ans while on his round, and I don't think anyone else has* either. The Act requires milk cans, to be.,washed with boilingj water. I think the only interpretation that can be placed, on his conduct is that he intended to add the water as he went along, instead of adding it all at once. He is out of business now, but I am not going to allow that , to influence me unduly'. I notice the offence was committed on. July 18. iThat wns before I commenced talking of sentencing milk vendors to imprisonment, and it might not be fair to sentenoe him, seeing that the offence happened some weeks before 'the warning ,was issued. But, I cannot look on ft: pxcept as a very deliberate offence." Galloway was.fined £50, with costs '£!■ 18s; , 'fid., on first charge, and .was conviote,d and discharged on the second. ■' ■•■.' ■ -.

Seafaring Man Turns Milk Vendor. > . -jv In .the case of L. Trigg, who was with, a similar offence, the milk .was stated to have contained 15 per ..Cent, of added'water. The sample was • .taken on July 29.' Mr. Prendeville said the Health Department was satisfied that this was a case in which defendant had failed to, exercise sufficient care in -testing' the milk received by him, and that he had aiot deliberately added water. Inspector Rawlinsop stated that the Biilk was sold as received/ .. • Mr. O'Leary represented the defendant, who, he said, had had no practical experience as a dairyman. "Ho is a seafaring man," ' remarked counsel, ■"and thought he would like an occupation ashore, so he got this business in March. This is his only offence, and -, as ,he feels it is not a trade he can remain in he has also sold his business;,' ■' ' -•■ ■■■-. .';' Mr. Frazer: Did he have a iactoilneter? ■ ' - . Mr. O'Leary: He had never seen a lactometer until a friend lent him one reosntly. ; His Worship: There is no excuse for , a milkman king without a lactometer, j [:I will treat the oase as one of carelessness, although in this instance it is one lof gross carelessness. . • : Defendant was fined £5, with costs £1 18s. 6t1., on the charge of selling (watered milk,-and was . ; convicted ■ and .discharged on the information of havjing failed to notify the ..purchaser of ithe nature of the adulteration.

the Farmer Blamed. A' former milk vendornamed John S. Munro, for whom Mr. 'Fiowie appeare:!, was also charged with having: sold milk which had been adulterated by the addition of .water, and with "having failed to inform the purchaser of the nature ;of the adulteration. . .. Mr. Howie' said defendant admitted that he did not.take sufficient care to test the,milk. The farmer who supplied it was really at fault. He understood the farmer had admitted having

put water in the milk. Munro' was now ( out of business, but during the ten years in whioh he had been a vendor he had only been prosecuted twice, and in both cases it was agreed that the farmer who supplied the milk was at fault. At the time the sample in tho present case ,was taken another man was acquiring the round, and defendant omitted to test all the milk he received.

His Worship imposed a fine of £5, with 17s. 6d.'costs, on tho first charge, and on the second' defendant was convicted and discharged.