DIRTY DAIRIES.

NZ Truth, Issue 69, 13 October 1906, Page 5

DIRTY DAIRIES.

Horrible Disclosures Anent Our Milk Supply. Filthy Premises and Filthier People.

Revelations made at the Wellington S.M.s Court on Monday last concerning the condition of a large number of dairies m the outlying suburbs ought surely to make most people hesitate whether it is safe to use milk for any purpose whatever, unless there is a satisfactory assurance forthcoming from the Chief Medical Officer that Wellington's milk supply is not damnably deleterious to public health and that it is fit for human consumption.

A state of affairs, alarming to the community and eternally disgraceful and discreditable to the dairy-keepers concerned, was then and there made public and it is -almost impossible to imagine that such foulness, filth and criminal disregard to sanitary laws should exist m a presumably civilized community. The description given ' by Stock Inspector Drummond m a number of cases— and many of the dairykeepers pleaded guilty, thus burking

full inquiry—would "stagger humanity," to quote a Krugerism. The dairies concerned cannot 'bear comparison with the putrid puke-provoking piggeries- of Avhi eh the public have heard a great deal lately. J Proceedings .at the Police Court on j Monday were of a lengthy nature. It was indeed a busy day, as from 10 j a.m. till after 5 p.m. case after case | came up for decision. The Stock .De- I partment had a <real right-royal day I out, as by its instrumentality two dozen or more dairymen were brought ! to a proper sense of their' filthy indifference to the by-laws governing the conduct of dairies ; but it seems soriiewhat strange that though the milk-walks* were found to be m this shocking condition as far "back as July last and during August, it was well into October before the offenders were brought before the Bench to answer for their disregard of cleanliness and* 1 the health of their customers. All the dairymen concerned were not before the Court on charges of having filthy dairies ; a number of them answered breaches of the bylaws m not having their names legibly printed on their carts ; others were charged with having failed to register the^ir dairies, and m a majority of such prosecutions the Stock Department made a miserable bungle of it, and, as the defendants were m no mood to overlook a mistake, the Department was mulcted m costs

every time it was shown that it had made a muddle. Of course, to use a goldfield's expression, on the day's clearing and cleaning up, with emphasis on the latter, the Department can show plenty of color, because with costs the fines averaged a "fiver." Mr ! Wilford, appeared for nearly all the defendants, some of whom are his Hutt constituents said before the • cases were called on lie made a vigorous protest against mulcting each 1 of the defendants m £3 3s legal costs ; which it is the custom to penalise offenders where the Crown prosecutes. Mr Wilford figured it out that if a conviction was sustained m each case the legal gentleman (Mr Findlay) representing the Crown would gather m something like 72 guineas more than a legal' luminary would get m the Court of Appeal. Mr Findla-r resented this, or rather explained that the costs were paid-

into the Public Account, and the Crown entered into < arrangements with the legal firm which he represented, which he did not feel disposed to disclose. The magistrate, when the time arrived fixed the costs at £l lls 6d, .and as Mr Wilford won several cases (m most of them he had not a hope) and had costs awarded him,', it was observed by the other side that he was no doubt sorry that he had spoken. The dairy-men- .and dairy-women arraigned come from Kaiwarra, 'Kaitake, Morigaroa' .Valley, Taita and Melrose. Those convicted of keeping their dairies* m an unclean state ' Were George Ball August, Robert Maskell August, Patrick Cavanagh, Ellen Cotter, Thomas Henry Eastwood, John'Fyfe,' James Montgomery G-ilmour, Roberjb Thomas Mabey.' and Robert Whiteirian. Each of these was. fined £1, and ordered to pay costs amounting: to £1 18s 6d. On charges of having used a cow-shed of the., dairy premises the walls and roofs of which were not -coated with lime-wash, as the Act ordains,. G-. B. August, Robert Maskell August, Alexander . Gojlie, John Collie and Margaret Collie, were all (with the exception of the latter, who was, m consideration- of the suggestion that the Collie family ought, on account of their number, to have a reduction, ordered to pay costs, £i 18 6d) fined £1 with costs. For offences of occupying premises

used as dairies and permitting heaps of manure to remain within 30ft of the said premises, William Brown, Patrick Cavanagh, Thos. Henry Eastwood and Robert Thomas Mabey were fined and muclt m costs m like amounts. For the offence of using a conveyance for the distribution of milk for the purpose of parrying manure, Alfred Waters and Maurice Welsh were each ordered to pay costs, the former's amounting, to £2 16s 6d. In one case, Margaret Coljje, for permitting swine to remain within 50 yards of a cowshed on her dairy premises, was ordered to pay costs. It was stated that there was only one pig seen by the Inspector when he visited tne dairy on June 26. John Fyfe was convicted of having at Miramar, on August 16, taken milk to be used for human food from cows whose udders and teats had not been thoroughly cleaned. It was shown m this case that the dairy yards were a perfect quagmire and the whole premises m a terribly filthy state. The cows and horses were up to their bellies m mud. Even m the presence of the Inspector some lads started to milk a number of cows, and before doing so they knocked mud and dirt off the teats, whereupon the Inspector made them clean them. There had also visited this dairy, an Inspector of the Health Board, who had repaired thither because complaints had been made by Fyfe's customers that they

had found a sediment m their milk. Those customers will probably now divine the cause of the sediment. For this breach of the by-law Fyfe was fined £1 and costs and reminded that he was liable to a penalty of £50. In face of the enormity of the offence this fine was simply farcical. Percival Thomas .Edwards, of Mungaroa Valley, was' proceeded against on a charge of having on August 22, 1906, used milk cans not thoroughly cleansed within four hours: of having been used. The cans, according to Inspector Bennett, of the Health Department, were m a putrid condition. The inspector accounted for his presence at this dairy on the day m question by saying that he was there investigating an outbreak of an infectious disease, the nature of which .was not stated. The milk from this 'dairy was sent to the Wellington Dairy Co. and the point Avas raised whether or not it was the latter company which should be held respon-' sible for th^ putrid state of the milk cans. Magistrate Me Arthur dismissed the case without costs, upon this ground, remarking, however, that the noint raised would have to be considered sooner or later. Other dairy-keepers were convicted of having failed to register their dairies and others with having failed to have their names legibly printed on their carts. Tbe evidence given m cases where

the dairies were m an unclean state was practically the same m every instance, though, if one was worse than another, that of the oft-=oon.victed Ca J vanagh, of Kaiwarra as he is called, can be quoted. Everywhere was horse and cow manure ; on the day the Inspector visited the place, pigs were feeding off a dead sheep and a calf (which fact, it may be mentioned, formed the subject of a recent prosecution against Cavanagh for feeding pigs on uncooked offal). The worst 'feature was the fact that the rear of this dirty dairy had been used as a privy "by human beings. Heaps of manure were scattered about promiscuously and it was m such a shockingly filthy state that the Inspector promptly ordered the dairy hands to turn to and clean the place up. Dirt and filth predominated m all these dairies, and though dairy-keepers know— and if they do not, they should not keep dairies— that it is absolutely essential that the milking premises should be white-washed as often as is needed, m those cases, where neglect m this respect formed the subject of an information, it was shown that not only had the places not been white-washed, but they were m an extremely dirty condition. Drains were blocked up, the utensils were foul, trie floors broken and torn up ; . m fact filth reigned supreme- . . ;,,,-. It is indeed questionable whether such an exposure of squalor, stink and unsavory, surroundings generally^

has been made anywhere outside Chicago. It is no wonder that Wellington's milk supply has been considered so unsatisfactory and so fruitful of disease, complaints and • investigation. The wonder is, indeed, that with milk coming from such tainted resources virulent epidemics have not made their ravages felt n this city. These exposures, notwithstanding the unaccountable leniency with which such offences were treated, may have the effect— now more than ever desirable—of dairy-keepers being extremely careful and scrupulously clean m their methods and premises, as such exposures must certainly aiarm the public and damage their business. It is within the power of tl Stock Department to cancel the license of any dairyman convicted of keeping unclean premises. Surely there never was a more auspicious moment than the present for the exercise of that authority. •■