MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 184, 23 August 1909, Page 5

MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

Dairy Association Case.

Waikato Correspondent.

In the Magistrates Court at Auckland en Saturday the New Zealand Dairy Association was charged with having on the 20th February, 1909, exported butter containing more than 16 per cent, of moisture. Mr S. Mays a, peered for the Department of Agriculture prosecuting, and Mr A. Hannan for the defendants. Mr Hnrtnan, on behalf of the Association pleaded guilty under extenuating circumstances. The Association turned out over 2000 tons of butter a year, sold under two different brands: "N.Z. Dairy" and "Anchor." The ten boxes complained of were not shipped under these brands, but under a registered mark "No. 109.'" Herbert E. Pacey, secretary of the Association, explained that the butter was made at one of the factories from damaged cream, ft was not made on the ordinary production of the day, but put through by a junior at the end of the day, and perhaps carelessly made. It was sent to Auckland for sale for pastry purposes, and there being a glut on the market at the time, it was shipped to England to be sold for what it would bring. Their agents in England knew what it was and would sell it as inferior butter. They only learned that it contained excessive moisture when it was on the way to England, and as soon as they heard this, the butter was withdrawn from the English market. The trouble had arisen through an inadvertency. Mr Mays said that the Anchor and Dairy brands were above reproach, and this could be published to the whole world, but from another sample they had taken butter containing 17.1 per cent, and from another one having 22.9 per cent, of moisture. Witness for defence said that they knew nothing of this, and had they done so they would rather have put the butter in the destructor than exported it. They tested their standard brands,and found none giving anywhere near the 16 per cent limit. They did not test pastry butter, but had they only known No. 109 was at fault there would have been no pro»ecu,tion. in reply to a question by Mr Hannan, witness said they bad never had an opportunity of checking the Department's tests. Mr Mays objected to the question as the defendants bad pleaded guilty. Mr Hannan then withdrew the plea of guilty, and the case was adjourned until Monday, the 30th August, to enable both parties to bring witnesses.