The Daily News THURSDAY, MARCH 15. "PURE MILK."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8060, 15 March 1906, Page 2

The Daily News THURSDAY, MARCH 15. "PURE MILK."

An important judgment was given a few days ago by Mi 1 Justice Denniston in an appeal by the Dairy Inspector against a decision of the Magistrate dismissing a charge against a dairy farmer of selling milk which did not conform to the requirements of the Act, The farmer sold to a milk vendor two lots of milk, which were found on analysis to contain 3G per cent anil 84 per cent respectively of added water. For the defence it was contended that if the article contained three per cent or more of but-ter-fat (which it did) it complied with the Act, and the Magistrate upheld this contention. His Honor pointed out that the clause of the Act provided that "pure milk" meant the whole of the milk drawn at the time of milking, including which was commonly known as the "shippings," but did not include the milk which contained less than three per cent of butter-fat, or was mixed with any preservative or chemical matter, His donor hold that "pure milk" was the whole of the milk drawn at the time of milking, and that it was not proper to reduce the lichness of the milk by extraction or omission, by drawing the last and richest parts of the milk (the "shippings") separately. The requirement of the presence of 3 per cent of butter-fat was not alternative to the previous requirements. In his Honor's opinion, therefore, the milk sold by respondent had not been pure milk, as it was I clear that a person mixing water with milk, or knowingly selling milk so mixed, would be liable under the Act. After quoting several cases dealing with the law in regard to adulteration, His Honor said that itwas 110 more unreasonable that a man who sold as pure milk, milk ml water which ke had bought, and which he had sold in ignorance of the mixture, should be liable, than that a man should Ijo liable who sold as beer, beer containing arsenic, not his own manufacture, and without knowledge of the adulteration, In the case under review tlio seller had, on being asked tl.ie question, alleged that the uiilk was [Hire. On the evidence, the respondent should have been con- : victed, arid the appeal would be allowed, with costs.