MILK AND WATER.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 9, 9 August 1916, Page 3

MILK AND WATER.

SALE OF FOOD AND DR.UCS ACT.

(Before Mr W. R, Haselden, S.M.,

at Hawera.)

| M. E. Rolfe, for whom Mr J. Eoy appeared, was proceeded against at Hawera yesterday by the Health Department for having, sold a sample of milk to Inspector Gray, an officer under the Salp of Foods and Drugs Act, 1909, containing a substitute, to wit, water, the addition of which was prohibited under the Act. Counsel, in entering a plea of guilty, stated that the water had not been added to the milk by the defendant. It was due to a cpndition of feeding, which had since been remedied. Inspector Gray, in his evidence, stated that the water in the sample taken was excessive, being 17.3. Mr Eoy, for the defence, said that evidence would He given that no water was added to the milk by the defendant, and that the excessive moisture was due to the fact that the cows had been fed on barley-wheat and bran mash. Mr A. McG. Robertson, who took the whole of defendant’s surplus milk, took a sample from tho same milk as that taken by the Inspector, when the lactometer, reading showed 27. Mr Robertson was not satisfied 1 with this, and toolt another sample, j with the same reading. Subsequently ■ he milked, the ecus himself, when the test again showed 27. Mr Robertson advised defendant to change the feed to hay and carrots with the result time in tlirCb days the lactometer reading went up to 30, Tile defendant, in evidence, denied positively that the milk had ever been watered.

Evidence was also given by Mr Robertson oil the lines of council’s statement. Witness considered that when the cows were being fed on barleywheat and bran mash the milk lacked body, and that was why he advised a change in the method of feeding tho Cows.

, The Magistrate said he hoped that the.io cases which had been before him Rifely would act as a warning.

A fine of £2, with costs 17s 6d, fvas imposed.—Star.