MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 174, 26 August 1909, Page 4

MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

NEW PLYMOUTH PROSECUTIONS. EXPORTERS FINED—MAKERS IGNORED. It was generally conceded that sooner or later the "Gutter proviuce" would have its shave of the prosecutions for, thu export of butter containing excessive moisture. The first cases of the, kind to be heard locally were brought before the S.M., Mr, li.S. Fitzherbert,. yesterday morning. Informations were laid by the Govern-, inent grader at New Plymouth, Mr. ,1. Johnston, under the Butter Export \ct, 1!)U7, which prohibits the exportation oi butter containing more than 10 per cent, of moisture. Pleas of guilty we'e entured in all cases. Mr. T. S. Weston, Crown Prosecutor, prosecuted in each

The first case taken was one in which J. Kyland Cruickshank was charged with attempting to export nine boxes of butter containing an excessive quantity of moisture at New Plymouth on July 2G. Mr. Quilliam appeared "or defendant.

Mr. Quilliam stated that the real defendants were Messrs. Collett and Co., the well-known butter merchants, Mr. Cruickshank being their New Zealand representative. There was a technical defence open to defendants, but they preferred not to take it, pleading fcuiity instead, as they were anxious to see the exportation of unduly moist butter stopped. Since the year 11)07 Collett and Co. had been making coni tinuous representations to the Dairy Commissioner in England and to the department in New Zealand with a view to this end. Collett and Co. had ndcavoured to assist the Government ar, much as possible, and Mr. Cruickshank had made similar representations to Mr. D. Cmldie. Chief Dairy Commitsinner. In 1907 the Legislature passed llio Act under which these cases weie; brought. Last year the Government' appointed analysts to analyse the butter exported, and Collett and Co. md other linns engaged in the export trade thought the action would be a safeguard. The uine boxes of separator butter involved in the present case formed part of a parcel of 100 Tiotses that were in the Moturoa Freezing Works ou July 17, when they were graded by the Government grader. This butter had been purchased by Collett

and Co. from two local farmers, the iirm thereby taking up a responsible position and safeguarding the farmers. Five boxes were graded iirst class aad the other four .second class. There was not one -word on the grade notes to indicate that there was ffto much moisture in the butter. On a-previous occasion when some of Collctt's butter was unduly moist the Grading Department communicated with Mr. Cruickshauk, who promptly withdrew it. On July 20 the butter involved in the charge 'was shipped by the Corinna for transhipment to the Turakina. Shortly after •the Coriiraa left the Department informed Mr. Cruickshauk that the butter continued ''l7 decimal something" of moisture. Mr. Cruiekshank telegraphed to the New Zealand Shipping Coy. 0:1 j the same day (July 2G) stopping the' transhipment of the nine boxes, and followed up his telegram with a letter to the same effect. Mr. Quilliam em* i phasised the fact that the notification !>v the Department was given nine days I after grading. The butter was sent to be graded for export, as was clearly known to the Department. If an offence had been committed the Department of Agriculture was directly responsible for it. There was an analyst at the freezing works and also a Government grador. r«nv came it that not until nine days ■.i" J'." gradifig Collett and Co. were ■ I -f.e quantity of moisture? Mr.

■ <"ii submitted that the case was on« where there was no necessity to inflict more than a merely nominal fine. The defendants were absolutely blam? less in the matter, and the case showed the necessity for an immediate alteration of the law.

Mr. Weston replied that the department had no wish to have heavy penalties inficted in the present ca-.es. The department's chief object in bringing these en.«ps was to advertise the f.ict that the law was in existence, in the interests of the public as a whole, nr. well as the producers. He pointed out that the initiative with regard to preventing the exportation of unduly moist butter was taken by the Imperial Government, with whose regulations the New Zealand Government had to fall in line. Mr. Weston granted that Collett and Co. were a firm of high respectability. The department admitted it, and believed that the flr;n had no desire to evade the law. But the conditions were proved against them. The analyst at New Plymouth, Mr. Larkin, was a very able and careful man. In the height of the season he had perhaps thousands of packages before him, and it was impossible for him 1,0 make an analysis at a moment's notice. But in any case the onus rested on the exporters to see that their butter did n<>i violate the law, even to havmg their own analysts if necessary. Mr. Fitzherberl pointed out'that the maximum penalty for the ofTence was ;i line of .L3O. but considered a light hue would meet the circumstances. Defendant was fined 3s, and coets £3 lfis.

A PRIVATE EXPORTER. In tlii' next vase a fanner named Charles Muskcr, living at Uruti, whs charged with exporting one box of butter containing more than 1G per cent, of moisture 011 February 25 last. As in tin' previous ease, a plea of guilty n extenuating circumstances was entered. Mr. Quilliam, who appeared for defendant, explained that for years past Mr, Whisker had been in the practice of sending one or two boxes of butter to an agent at Xew Plymouth, to have the butter graded and exported on defendant's own account. The agent did tiie shipping. Defendant manufactured the butter, but had no means of telling that it contained too much moisture. Mad he known it lie would not have ox ported the butter. Tho difficulty was to suggest how people could complv with the law, unless thev engaged their own analysts. I

Ml'. Weston stated that in this ease also the Crown would be satisfied with a small penalty. It might be that defendant was scarcely aware of the offence, but that was no defence. The Act might require some little amendment, but in the meantime the law was tl|ere. Tlis Worship said he l|ad to interpret the law as he found it, although it seemed to liini a difficult matter for a man to liwd out if his bntter contained more than 10' per cent, of moisture. Defendant would be fined ss. and costs £5 Is,

DAIRY COMPANY FINED. Ihe Midhirst Co-operative Dairy Company. Ltd., was the defendant in the, remaining ease, in which one box of lmtler, exported on February 25, was concerned. A similar plea to'tlie previous one was entered, I Mr. T. C. Fookes, who appeared for the defendant company, said there was no company in New Zealand more anxious to comply with the law than were ilis clients, who fully appreciated the efforts of. the Department and endeavored ( to help the latter attain its object. The butter in question in this case contained 17.82 per cent, of moisture, and this was caused by an accident in the course of manufacture. The company had recently installed a combined churn and butter-worker, which at this stage was more or less in the nature of an experiment. and Hie company was not able to regulate its product so well as before. This probably accounted for the moisture ill one box of butter. This particular box was consigned to Weddcll tad C". On July 31 the company recciced a most flattering letter (which counsel lead) from Weddcll and Co. regarding the quality of the butter sent forward' by the company during the entire season. Weddcll and Co. had bought the factory'? output for the season at a price on which they must have lost, yet thev were well pleased with the qualify of the butter. Not a single complaint had beon received from tUc consignees in England. The company throughout the season had maintained a very high standard in the butter it produced—a standard higher than was required by the Act except in this particular case. Mr. Weston said, as before, that 'jirGovernment would be satisfied with a moderate penalty. The Department had received a Idler i M which the defendant company regretted-that the factory had overstepped the limit in this case, and undertook to do its utmost to prevent a recurrence of the offence. Defendant company was fined 5s and costs, U 3s. I