CLEAN MILK VESSELS.

Shannon News, 13 April 1926, Page 4

CLEAN MILK VESSELS.

AN IMPORTANT CASE TO DAIRY*. MEN. A legal, point of much importance to dairymen, not ‘ in the Otaki district, but throughout the Dominion, was raised in the defence to a prosecution for an alleged breach of the Dairy Regulations in the Magistrate’s Court at Otaki on Thursday last. The District Inspector for Dairies (Mr W. Wilson) proceeded against Alfred Bolton (who was represented by Mr A. M. Dunkley) on the following I charge, * ‘ That being the occupier of a registered dairy he did fail to thoroughly cleanse within four hours of having used saike, certain vessels used in such dairy. ’ ’ The Inspector stated: Bolton is a registered dairyman and has a milk run, while some of his milk is supplied to the Rahui factory. He inspected Bolton’s dairy and found the machinery in a dirty state. Details of %this were given. To Mr. Dunkley: I know Bolton fairly well. I arrived at his farm shortly before 2 o'clock. I did not see Bolton as the boy said he was away. I did not go to the house; it is our duty to inspect the utensils and not to look for the owner. I did not know Mr Bolton’s milk had been classed first-grade for the past 15 months. I know that lie had recently installed an electric heater so as to have boiling water which he could have procured gratis at the factory. He may have 120 ft of concrete drain, although the regulations provide only for 30ft., but that had nothing to do with the utensils. I did not tell him his hot water service was no good. For the defendant Mr Dunkley said that he relied on a legal defence. As an alternative the facts would also be relied on to disprove the allegations of the Inspector. In the first place the regulation under which Mr Bolton was prosecuted did not apply, he submitted, to milking machines. The regulation under which the information was laid commenced “All cans or other vessels used in or about the distribution of milk. . . . shall be thoroughly cleansed . . . within four hours of using same. . .' . ” The words “or other vessels’’ must apply, counsel submitted, to utensils of a similar nature to Dictionary definitions of the meaning of the word “vessel’’ were then quoted by counsel. How could a milking machine be culled a “vessel” used in the distribution of milk? he asked. The Inspector said that prosecutions in Wellington under the same regulation had resulted in convictions being made against dairymen for. failing to clean 'their machines. The Magistrate: “That does not prove that the convictions were right in law. Had the point raised by Mr. Dunkley ever been raised before .tho Wellington Magistrates.” The Inspector said that it had not. Mr. Dunkley submitted the charge must fail. The regulations were not framed to include milking machines. The Magistrate said that on the face cf it, he was of thb opinion that the contention of counsel was right. It seemed that a milking machine was not a “vessel” within the wording of the regulation. The Department had better bring the regulations up-to-date immediately, as undoubtedly it should read differently. The.lnspector said he would-advise his Department to do so. Mr. Dunkley went - on to say that his client denied all the Inspector had said with regard to the state of the machines. His milk for 15 months had almost daily been tested by the “Reductase Test,” the severest, test known, and had always been graded first grade. The manager of Rahui Factory, Mr. Sharp, could be called to give evidence on this point. It was scientifically impossible for milk passing through machines described to be as the Inspector described them, to be able to stand up to the reductase test. Mr. Dunkley further criticised the way the Inspector had gone on the farm behind Bolton’s back. His client had done more than the regulations prescribed. He had spent money lavishly to make his milking shed up-to-date, and produce only a first grade article. Was it likely that a man who had gone to so much trouble and expense, would fail to clean his machinery, etc.?

William H. Francis stated: I have worked for Mr. Bolton for about tlirec months and do odd jobs about the shed. I saw the Inspector scraping the cooler which, was free of slime, etc. Lids, etc., were also clean. Mr. Bolton docs the maclnne-cleaning himself. To the Inspector witness stated emphatically that all utensils were quite clean and not dirty as stated.. Defendant also gave evidence, stating that he cleaned, all the utensils himself, leaving nothing to his boy. He used cold water, and also boiling soda water and had power for heating, had high-pressure water, etc., so as to make his shed up-to-date. He also put in several drains much longer than the regulatins provided for. TJ'he machines were always thoroughly eleansed, and it would be impossible for dirt to accumulate , even in one spot. He had never receiv- \ ed one complaint about his milk, in fact visitors commented on the excellence of the milk. He had never had secondgrade milk; he was always careful to get a first-grade article. . To the Inspector: I swear t-lie hui factory, testified to the flue quality of the milk as supplied to the factory, and added that the milk could not b'e up to the standard if there was dirt. Grease as stated would not affect the milk. • _ The S.M. decided to reserve judgment till next Court day.