MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 162, 26 November 1912, Page 3

MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

A MAXAWATU CASE,

% Telegraph-Press Association.

Pahnereton North, November 25." •ui, the Magistrate's Court the Department of Industries and Conferee Proceeded against' the Glen OroiT ™oS' WIS ' •? . fo » ra^ng- consignments ir ™ co , ntau "ng an excess of water. All. llctcher appeared for the comPW, and pleaded guilty. He stated that the company had-taken every care to nave the moisture' contents correct and tliat he could not explain the high „er««iaje ia this. case. The department Jiatl iomid in consignments from defen-dants-17-per'cent, of moisture, whereas the amount allowed by kw was 10 per cent. Immediately the company heard 01, this they recalled the whole shipment and had it tested. According to their test the'moisture contents came out at lhi/j P er cent

Mr. Thomson said that this was the first case of the kind which he had known m this district, although there had been similar prosecutions in other parts of the Dominion. -

Mr. Jacobs said the department were anxious-to proteet'the industry. In August they had circularised the dairy companies stating, that owing to.the large amount of exports it was not possible to test all .produce going through, but a test, would be taken of each line. The companies were asked to assist the department in every way possible, but wt-re informed that they would be prosecuted if the moisture content exceeded the limit. Shortly after that the department found a line of butter from the Glen Orona Company contained 15.9 per edit .of water, and consequently the company was warned that the moisture was near the limit. On September 24 the conment tested 10 per cent, of moisture and the company was again warned, but on October 12 the water ran up to 17.8 per ,cent. All the department desired to do was to rlioav the companies in this district that the intention of the. regulations was to be carried, out. .They did not wish to press for a'heavy penalty. Hi« Worship remarked on the fact that two warnings had been given that the limit was being approached, and he imposed a fine of £2, with court costs.