NOT ENOUGH FAT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 73, 27 March 1941, Page 7

NOT ENOUGH FAT

MILK FROM A FARM

COUNSEL ATTACKS THE LAW

ONUS OF PROOF OF CARE

"I do most strongly protest this is not a case in which a conviction should be entered against these milk vendors," said Dr. O. C. Mazengarb when appearing for the defence in a case in which J. E. and H. L. August were being prosecuted at the Petohe Court for selling milk deficient in fat content, -

Mr; A. M. Goulding, S.M., presided,

The facts of the case were not in dispute. On January 15 at 6.55 a.m. Inspector Pomare took a sample of milk from one of the defendant's milk vans, and the analysis of the sample showed a deficiency of fat solids.

Evidence was produced to show that the milk had been received from a farm not under the control of defendants, only ten minutes before the sample was taken. The sample was taken from a previously untouched full can.

For the defence Dr. Mazengarb contended that it had been held that a defendant could not be convicted if he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the quality of the milk.

Inspector Pomare admitted in evidence that the only course open to the defendant was to have the milk analysed, which would have taken several hours.

Dr. Mazengarb contended that this was not a' reasonable step.

The case differed materially from a case where added water or dirty milk was, alleged and where more or less rapid- tests were possible, said Dr. Mazengarb, who held that the onus lay on the prosecution to show what other steps the defendant could have taken to prove the quality of the milk.

"AS THE LAW STANDS."

"As the law at present stands," said Mr. Goulding, "the' onus lies on the defendants to show that they took all reasonable steps. They must prove that they took some active steps to ascertain the quality. I agree that there might be the greatest difficulty in taking such steps."

Dr. Mazengarb: At the risk of.being accused of speaking heatedly in this matter I do submit that your ruling reduces the position to an absurdity and a farce, and if the Bench takes up this attitude it is not justice and not fair. I submit that your Worship should indicate what steps the milk vendors in this case could have taken.

"It has been held," replied Mr. Goulding, "that a Judge or Magistrate is not called upon to answer such a question; but what was to prevent the vendors satisfying themselves that the milk produced on the farm was produced in such conditions that it would pass the test? —I cannot see how I can avoid a conviction in this case. The defendants will be fined 305."

The producer of the milk on the farm said that the probable explanation of the deficiency was that, in his hurry to make an early delivery, he had milked the heavy milkers first, and these being Holsteins, did not produce as rich a milk as Jerseys. The season was extremely dry, which would have an effect on the milk, and he might not have fully mixed the "strippings" (which were richer) with the main supply. He had now made arrangements to mix the Holstein, Jersey, and other milk thoroughly before any deliveries were made. He had also reinforced his herd with more Jersey cows.

A fine of 30s and costs was imposed.

A leading brand of cornflour being no longer available from the United Kingdom, arrangements have been made for its supply to New Zealand from another country.