ADULTERATED MILK.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 54, 24 July 1914, Page 7

ADULTERATED MILK.

I'UWX SUI'I'LIERS BEFORE THE COURT. SOME STU-F FIXES. As a result of samples of milk taken fiurn various town supplies by .Mr T. 0. r'ieliler, inspector, and forwarded to Wellington 'for inspection, several local 'milk vendors appeared before tlie Magistrate. Mr A. Crooke, chiiriieil with breaches of tile Sale " 0 i J.'oo'd and Drugs Act. The informations were in each case laid under two heads, viz.. silling milk containing added water, the addition of which is prohibited l>v regulations, and by sidling milk adulterated with added water without informing the purchaser. Thomas Ocorge Koildcr, of the nature, of the adulteration. In each ease the second information was withdrawn.

ALLEGED SPILT MILK. The first case was against Frank Richards, the date of the offence being given as .May 35. Mr A. H. Johnstone appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Scnr.-Sergt. Haddrell, who prosecuted. >tated that the certificate of analysis showed 12.7 per cent, of added water. Mr Johnstone, in extenuation, said that defendant had been in business on the Avenue road as r. milk vendor for over twenty years, and that this j was the first charge against him. Though ; the freezing test, which he could not dispute, showed 12.7 per cent, added water, yet the milk itself was very good, ' despite the adulteration, an it contained 4.15 per cent, of butter fat. as against the minimum of 3.25 required bv law, ami 8.05 solids other than fat as against 8.4. required, the total solids therefore being greater. So sure was the defendant that his milk was right. that though warned that the inspector was in the neighborhood he took no steps to evade liini, but actually went into the 'locality. On that date," he had had I an accident, and had spilt siune milk, and. as it was impossible to purchase milk, water was, added. To the .Magistrate: His milk had been tested before, but not to his knowledge with the freezing test, which differentiated between naturally poor milk and milk containing added water. A fine of Co and costs Vte fid was inflicted.

ALLKCKD IJEFKOTTYK COOLER. . >fr 0. Anstis pleaded guiltv to a simi- . lar clianm ~11 tin- .lute of .Tunc 11. Hi! i was defended l»v llr IS. Quilliam. ', Tin- analysis sliowcd added water IS.I \ |'i ■>■ cent: 'flit l.t'i: solids other than fat. 7.6. Mr Qnilliani stated tliat defendant was absent at tin- lime and that tin- offence ocruned tlirmiftli tlie cooler leaking. On his return. !n- examined tin- cooler and di-ioverod I!;.' leak. Anvonc familiar witli coolers .oul.l detect the leak at mi.-,' liy thr air escape. li.it his ln'otlii-i'. who was not used to coolers, did not noTin' iiiiliiiv of tliu cooler was explain.•d to tlio court. ! Clarence Slirinipton. niaiinsrcr of tlie Omnia OliccM' factory, deposed tliat defendant, had supplied his factory, and !i. t.-U had lli'i'll the lii<dlc>t ill the i;>,'l,,rv. lie i-cainiiied the cooler, and in the l.'ritti-.in rim he discovered a hole /■out the iv.e of a pin's head. In four minutes tl'.i- leaked alioul a quart. per cent, of water dining tlie time the cans were left under the cooler.

be caused through the cooler getting old, and should have been easy to discover if one were used to a cooler. A fine of ,t7 and costs Ms Gd was inflicted, the Magistrate stating that the leak had probably been there some time. A TECHNICAL BREACH. ]•'. S. Butler, milk vendor, of New Plymouth, pleaded not guilty to a similar charge. Mr Nicholson appeared for him. Thomas George Fielder gave evidence as to the purchase of the milk on May 25th from Scott, an employee of Butler,, and thai lie had given duo warning' at the time. The analysis of the milk showed 12.7 per cent, of added water; 3.U0 fat; and 8.30 solids other than fat; the total solids being more than the minimum required. Mr Nicholson said that the defendant' was in an entirely different position to the other two cases, as he dill not pro-!-duce the milk himself, but received it from a number of persons, and It was obvious that he could be victimised. Of course he had his remedy by having a guarantee, but had latterly neglected this owing to various reasons. It was, of course, a serious thing to defendant, more than a matter of £ s. (1.. and lie wished to show that there had been no moral stigma on defendant or his employees. , William Montague Scott, an employee of defendant, deposed that his duty was to .-upply milk to the customers direct from a dandy which he received at the dairy. He did not add any water, but delivered the milk as he received it.

Frederick Samuel Butler, defendant in the action, deposed that lie never saw the milk in question. Tie obtained his supplies from a number of farmers. On arrival at his dairy, the milk was weighed, pasteurised, and then delivered to customers. His brother always received the milk. Tie had been in business in Xew Plymouth nearly ten years, and he had never had a complaint. To Senr.-Sergt. Haddrell: His cooler did not leak. To tlie Magistrate: There was no difficulty whatever in detecting a leak in the cooler. Percy Burdette Butler, brother of the defendant, and in the hitter's employ. gave evidence that he took in the milk I on the morning in question, as ho had (done for ,\ears. The milk was in his i charge from the time it came into the dairy until it went out. and he was positive that during that time no water was added.

To tlio Magistrate: lie liad no menus of telling whetlier the milk lie received contained added water or not. Tie could 'only tell if tlie hutter-fat was up to the 'standard. The Magistrate, in inflicting a line ot £3 and costs Ills 6il, said that he recognised that defendant was in a. dill event position to the other eases.