MILK ADULTERATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 172, 29 December 1914, Page 2

MILK ADULTERATION.

interesting law points. rri n, ■ , WelUll g toi >> December 24. Unef Justice to-day delivered his reserved judgment in the case of the Crown v. William Ineledon. This was an appeal against the decision in the Magistrate's Court, and the question in dispute was a point of law in the "Sales ot Foods and Drugs Act, 1908." Defendant in the Jower court was charged with selling to one Arch milk containing water and annotto. This latter substance gives the milk a rich and creamy appearance, and is prohibited b.y regulation under the Act. Tile deitiiee was that there should be no conviction unless the sample of milk on which the prosecution was based was divided into tlirte parts, and one was handed to the vendor. The Magistrate upheld tins point, raised by Mr Myers who appeared for Ineledon, notwithstanding Mr P. S. K. Mac'issey's (for the Health Department) contcntion that this condition only applied when taken for analysis, and not when tioiT aS ' mrc ' laeu< ' or ' lulnall consumpMr Macassy contended that the information could be laid by a common informer, and, a fortiori, bv an officer under tile act. At the appeal Mr Myers also submitted tiiat the information should be laid by the purchaser, ana not by un ofiicer under the Act. In deciding, the Chief Justice uphold both Moseys points, and allowed the appeal. He said that appellants had net proceeded under sections 4, f>, 7 and yp Act. By these sections an o-Tjci'i had authority to seize unwhjlsome or deleterious food, or to purchase for analysis. Appellants had purchased a sample of milk and proceeded as the Act provided. His Honor was of the opinion that any person could lay an information and that in cases where an oflicer or other person was not proceeding under a special section of the Act, it was not necessary to comply V.ith the provisions of those sections, it would, he continued, impede the usetulness of the Act if no prosecution could be successful unless t'le nrovislons of section 7 (concerning the diviwm" fii 8 ' 11 "? 1 ® 8 . into thrcc P arts ) weie followed. Adulterated food V,„ld be sold wholesale h the contentions or the respondent were correct, and the conviction of sellers wouid become impossible. The ease was iu-eordi;i"lv f'v jT k t , tn the Mtgbtnu:* Couvt, \Mtu the .Supreme Court decision. Owing to its novelty no costs wer-> allowed. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching ellects in cases of piwcuiions tor milk adulteration.