WATERED MILK

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10288, 24 May 1919, Page 8

WATERED MILK

VENDOR'S LIABILITY

MUNICIPAL DEPOT METHODS DESCRIBED. August St. Eomain, milk vendor, of Hataitai, was charged before Mr F. V. Fraaer. S.M., yesterday in the Magistrate's Court with soiling milk to which water had been added. Mr J. Prendeville, of tho Crown Law Office, appeared for tho prosecution, Mr M. Myers for the defendant, and Mx J. O'Shea watched the proceedings on behalf of the City Corporation. Inspector Itawlinson, to Mr Myers, said he knew that the milk in question camo from the municipal milk depot. Ho explained, as far as he knew, the system adopted in treating milk at the depot, but he did not know if control samples were taken, lie had taken a number of samples at the deE* ot, but not on that day. lie did not now how many vats of milk were put through during each day, what test* were taken, or tho way the milk was allowed to run into tho coolers. _ He did not know the method of swilling the floor, and had heard complaints ; from vendors about the milk not keeping. ANTICIPATED ATTACK. Mr O'Shea said ho had been asked to be present bv tho city milk authorities, as it was believed that an attack was to be made on the municipal milk supply. As there was no chance of refuting any statement that might be made, he asked ' ; the court not to allow any irrelevant : matter to bo introduced which c*ould not be replied to. The magistrate said that all tho court was concerned about was Vatcr in the milk, and anything outside that i question would be irrelevant: Mr Myers said it was not liis desire to make an attack on the milk depot. He only wishe"d to show that the milk was. sold as received. The depot had > , not been able to overcome the difficulties vendors were liable to. It was a

new institution, and he had no doubt they tools all the precautions that were possible in the circumstances. In had been admitted that stale milk had been delivered from the depot, and he only wanted to refer to it, as it might have an effect, upon the penalty_.imposed. The magistrate said he did not think that stale milk had anything to do with the charge. Mr Myers replied that if milk were delivered from the depot in a stale state, it showed that the authorities were not in a position effectively to deal with ib at present. ■;. ■•■.... ...■ Mr Prondeville said that if the vendors had a grievance they had a right of action against the depot. Mr Myers: No, they haven't. _ '.Leo St. Romain, son of the defend-

ant, said he ' remembered Inspector Rawlinson taking a sample of the milk on March 25bh. The milk had been procured from the depot the previous day. .The full quantity ordered had not been supplied in the morning, and witnesi had to go to the depot for more. After waiting at the depot from 10 o'clock in the morning till after 2 o'clock in the afternoon, he was able to secure 15 gallons. His father ~ "took'lo gallons from Mm, and, the remainder was taken straight to the shop. 'ine wife of the defendant said she remembered selling a sample of milk to Inspector Rawlinson. The milk had beon in a can in the shop overnight, and had not been touched since its arrival the previous afternoon. There was no other milk in the shop. WATER IN A TAT.

Robert M. Guthrie, farmer, Karori, .deposed to selling milk to the depot. A sample was taken each day, and a composite sample was obtained at the end of. seven days. On January 24th last, his attention was drawn to a vat which contained water. Mr Myers: That was an accident, of course. Witness: Ob, yes. . Mr Myers: It would not have given the farmer any more. Witness: No; his milk had already been weighed. The witness said that the cans at the depot, after being steamed, were upright, and were not given an oppor" (trinity to drain. After a can lad been washed, a cup of water could be drained from /t. He would be surprised to learn that only Ealf a cup could be obtained from teii five-gallon cans which had been steamed. ■George Bradley, fanner, South .Karori, said he remembered water being In a vat when milk was to run in. but when the attention of the authorities was drawn to it the milk-and-water wa3 allowed to run on to the floor. The defendant stated that the milk I from wHich the sample was taken was riot handled by him. The vendor's cans were washed out at the depot and floors wero hosed down when the lids were off the cans. He did not test the milk as he considered it would be all right when coming from such, a source. Lately he had tested the milk he received. NO CONTROL SAMPLES.

Mr Myers said there was no evidenco of tests having been taken at tho depot. It was believed that no control samples were kept, and it was impossible to get samples of particular vats. Only lactometer tests were taken. Th» only explanation was that added water was in the particular delivery to St.

Rornain. Mr Frendeville said that he could call rebutting evidence as to milk being sold to defendant on the afternoon in question. The records showed that St., Romain had ordered 125 gallons of milk on March 24th and had received 10ft gallons which was delivered in the morning.

ALL SUPPLIES TESTED. Samuel Steele, milk-tester at the city supply depot, said that on tho afternoon of March 24th, 776 gallons of milk 1761-0 received. There bji a shortage that day, and vendors had been waiting; for milk from 8 o'clock in the morning. The vendors asked to be supplied at once, hot witness declined to let them have any before the milk had been pasteurised and tested. The milk passed through three coolers and tins tested as it- came out of tho second cooler. The milk, after passins; through the coolers fell into a vat with a rapacity of 350 gallons and was tapped bv 12 cans at a time. The lactometer, showed the milk to contain 4.2 per cent, in fats '"* and 9.1 per cent, solids other than fats. On March 24th the total quantity or milk received was 4155 gallons; A lactometer tost was taken of every sample that came in. The Government had taken 190 samples and tho Department's tests were always higher than th»se of witness. He remembered wator boing in a rat, but it wa3 run Off. ■ '

To Mr Myers: It would take lrotn

one and a .half to two hours to treat ;776 gallons of milk, but the delivery could start in a quarter of an hour. There was a shortage of milk on the day in- question,- but there was no confusion. Only composite samples were taken, but the method adopted was on the right lines and was under the guiaance of the Dominion Analyst. Butterfat samples were kept for ten days. Paul C. Peters, superintendent ot the milk department, produced records to show that defendant got 105 gallons of milk on the morning of March 24th. He said it was possible for water to got into the cans when tho floor was being swilled, but improbable. Stanley J. Friis, doorman at the depot said there was no entry in the books of St. Komain having received 15 gallons of milk on tho afternoon ol March 24th, and it was impossible for him to have obtained a supply wrthout signing for it or paying cash. Tho magistrate said that it did not matter when tho defendant bought his milk'. Ho was liable for its adulteration under the Pure Food and Drugs Act. One could understand, howevei, a vendor having no suspicion of milu being below tho standard when coming from tho municipal depot and therefore, not taking further tests. The milk in question was only 7 per cent, below the standard and was good rich milk. Tho defendant's wife and son had sworn they had not tampered with it. and be had no reason to disbelieve them! There was a rush at the depot on that particular afternoon. Tho defendant was one of the first to be sapplied. The test taken was only from the first few gallons and there unighc have been an inaccuracy. In the circumstances it was possible that a small quantity got through that was under the standard, but the case was an iso later one and might never happen again. There was no evidence to show how tho water got into the milk, but the fact remained that the defendant was liable.-

Mr Myers asked tho court not to impose, a" penalty. The milk depot was a now institution, and was liable to accidents. If a penalty was imposea it would be a black mark against the defendant.

The magistrate said it might have been an accident, but the vendor had to take the responsibility. In the special circumstances he would order the defendant to pay £2 Is costs and a fine would not be imposed.