MILK VENDORS FINED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 31, 5 February 1913, Page 3

MILK VENDORS FINED.

A MAGISTRATE’S ADVICE. “Milk vendors should understand clearly,” stated Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., at the Auckland Court yesterday morning, in the course of a judgment, “that they can rely upon a warranty as a defence to a prosecution under the ‘Sale ol food and Drugs Act, 1 only when they supply the milk within a reasonable time after its receipt and substantially in the same condition as they received it. Such manipulation of the milk, in order to meet the needs of Wednesday and Sunday as was described by the defendants in this case, is quite sufficient to put upon them the necessity of testing the milk supply, notwithstanding a warranty from the farmer.” The judgment in which the magistrate issued this warning was in a case by the Public Health Department aga'n«fc H. P, Jenkins and John Tay-

j lor, of Devonport, the charge being that they sold milk of a quality below the standard required by the Act. In his decision his Worship said the defendants obtained their milk from a farm at the Tamaki and brought it up by lauiifch, and divide the milk on arrival at Devonport. Taylor in his evidence said that he disposed, next marring-, of the milk ho got in the evening, and that on Wednesday, there feeing only one delivery, he disposed what lie got the evening before, and what was left from Tuesday’s midday round, pasteurised. The sample on which the prosecution was based was taken on a Wednesday morning. Taylor’s employee said that the milk on that occasion was not pasteurised,

but was the mills tjhat had come in the cans from the farms the previous evening. Jenkins said he sold on Wednesday the milk received from the farm the previous evening, mixed with what was left over from Tuesday, pasteurised. Both defendants stated that they relied on the warranty and had no reason to suspect that the milk supplied did not conform to it. To meet that the prosecution proved that all the milk sent from the farm on the Tuesday had been tested and found to comply with the requirements of the Act. The defendants then brought further evidence with the object of modifying their previous evidence, and intended to show that the milk delivered on the Wednesday was not that obtained by them from the farm on- the Tuesday evening. Such evidence could have no weight. Even if his Worship had been able to accept what might bo called the amended evidence, he did not think it would have afforded them any defence. Both defendants would be convicted, Jenkins fined £lO and costs, and Taylor (against whom there was a previous conviction) £2d and costs.—Star.