MILKMAN FINED

Evening Star, Issue 19801, 27 February 1928, Page 6

MILKMAN FINED

INSUFFICIENT BUTTER FAT NOT A SERIOUS CASE David Wilkinson was charged in the City Police Court this morning with, ou November 28, selling certain milk which did not comply with the regulations under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, in that it contained Jess than 3i per centum parts of butter fat. Mr W. T. Taylor, who appeared for the prosecution, said the defendant was a farmer in the Green Island district, and delivered milk in the South Dunedin area. The inspector asked him for a sample of milk, which, on being analysed, was found to be .15 below standard. The standard required was 3.25 and the standard of defendant’s milk was 3.10. An unsatisfactory feature was that tho defendant misled the_ inspector in regard to where he might finh him later on. Defendant also failed to tell the inspector that the milk did not come from his own farm, hut from his brother’s.

Mr C. J. Payne, for the defendant, said there was no suggestion of adulteration. Wilkinson, who carried on business at Green Island, was a respectable man, and there was no suggestion of any other charges being brought. Defendant did not understand how this milk came to be under standard, as ho took great care of it. He suggested that the inspector might have taken the sample from the “dregs” of the milk. The cream came to the top of the milk, and that explanation might he a reasonable one. There was no suggestion or water having been put into the milk. His Worship: “There is no suggestion of adulteration?”

Mr Taylor: “ No, sir.” In reply to the magistrate the inspector said that when ho took the sample there would bo about three gallons left for distribution. The season had been a pretty wet one, making the grass slushy. Mr Payne : “ Then it became very dry.” His Worship eid the standard laid down by the Act was not a very higa one. In the present case the milk was p ;t down at 3.10 and the minimum laid down by the Act was 3.25, this making a difference of .15. It was not a bad case, and there was no suggestion of adulteration. He was unable, however, to treat any case of milk below standard as a nominal case. Defendant would he fined £3 and costs, including 11s 9d (analyst’s fee) and £3 3s (solicitor’s fee).