WATER IN MILK.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 161, 17 October 1910, Page 5

WATER IN MILK.

A SUPPLY COMPANY FINED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A decision of importance to milk vendors was given by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday in the prosecution brought by, the police against the Wellington Fresh Food and Ice Company for the sale of milk adulterated -with water. The defendant company, said the Magistrate, was charged that on August 10 last, at Wellington, it sold milk which contained a substance, namely, water, the addition of which is prohibited by regulations made under the authority of "The sale- of Go<#i and Drugs Act, 1008." According to the standard fixed by the regulations, milk should contain not less than 12 per cent, of total solids, not less than 8.5 per cent, of solids, not less than 3:25 per cent, of fatty solids, and not more than one per cent, of ash. An analysis of the sample of milk obtained from the defendant company disclosed the constituent parts to be: Total solids 1.1.72, solids (not fat) 7.42, fatty solids 4.30, with a statement by the analyst that the sample contained 12.71 per cent, of water in excess of that allowed by the standard. Section 20 makes the production by the prosecution of a certificate of analysis, purporting to be under the hand of an analyst, sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein, unless the defendant requires the analyst to be called as a witness. Defendant did not require the analyst to be called as a witness, nor was the correctness of the r analysis questioned. The point Taised j by the defendant was not that the certifi- _ cate was incorrect, but that the evidence for the prosecution was not suffir cient to make defendant liable for the » presence of' any excess of water in the ' milk; that it was sold as received from J the supplier; and that although water was present in excess, it had not-been r added artificially. The analyst's certifi- . cate was, prima facie, evidence of the statements contained therein, and it showed that this particular sample of milk had 13.7 per eent. more water than is allowed iby the standard. It therefore contained a substance whose addition .1 was prohibited by regulations. The sale !- of the article of food in which was found i a substance prohibited by the regulai, tion constitutes the offence, and as de- • \, fendant was not charged with adding i- water to the milk sold, it seemed to the t Magistrate that in applying the provid sions of the statute to the facts the Court was not concerned to find how the •• prohibited substance found its way into t the article sold. n Defendant company was convicted and jl fined 40s, with Court costs (7s), analyst's a fee (Ms Od), and solicitor's foe (£2 2s). >• Security for appeal was fixed in the sum <J of £lO 10s, together with payments 5f the fine and costs.