MILK PROSECUTION

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 247, 12 July 1919, Page 9

MILK PROSECUTION

DEFICIENCY IN FATS ' CARELESSNESS OF EMPLOYEES Two informations, of selling milk deficient in fats were preferred against AVillinm Henrv Keid, milk vendor, before Mr. F. V.'Frazer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr. .1: Tudhopo appeared for the Crown, and Mr. 11. F. O'Leary represented tho defendant.

Air. Tudhope staled that on May 20 last Inspector Rawtynson purchased a sample of milk from one of the defendant's servants; and on being analysed it was found to be deficient in milk fats. Tho particular. sample only contained 2.30 per cent, of fat, instead of 3.25 per. cent., which was the standard: On the same day seven other samples were taken from other vendors who obtained their supplies from the municipal milk depot. These samples were all tested, and '■ the average, percentage of fats for tho day was 4.30 per cent On May 22 Inspector Rawiinson took another sample from the defendant,, and this also was deficient in fats. Other samples were taken from other vendors, and the average percentage of fats was 4.55 per cent. Counsel for the defendant pleaded guilty, but slated that his client was an honest milk vendor, and had not done anything to his milk to cause the deficiency of fats. In fact, tho milk was received from the municipal milk wagon early in the morning, and handled 'by his servants. The procedure was to pour the milk from tho municipal cans into the defendant's cans, and afterwards deliver the milk. .

Tho defendant gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement, and' said that his servants had.been provided with plungers, or agitators, to keen tho fats equally distributed in (he milk. If the milk-was left undisturbed the fats rose to the top, and aa»a result the milk at the bottom, if analysed, would show a deficiency in fats.' As far as ho, knew his servants used the plungers. Evidence was riven by Inspector Rawlinson to the effect that there was no plunger on the cart when he obtained the samples.

His Worship said that.the defendant himself appeared to have acted quite honestly,- and:-there was no suggestion that, the milk had been adulterated'by water. The,shortage in fats iwas probably caused by the removal of the cream. Tho milk had not been agitated, and as a result (lie milk mi top contained 'a greater proportion uf fats than the milk at the bottom. If milkmen agitated their milk, at short intervals there would not be nnv prosecutions of this kind. To his mind the standard for milk fats (3.25 per "cent) was ridiculously low. In conclusion, ho remarked that,tho carelessness of the servants of the defendant was no doubt responsible for the prosecutions, and if small fines did not.stop carelessness they would have to bo mado big. until employees bpcame careful. The defendant would bo fined .£2 on each chrirgt. and would bo ordered to pay costs i' 3 3s.