WATER IN MILK.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 September 1920, Page 7

WATER IN MILK.

j CONVICTION AT STRATFORD. | .AN UNUSUAL DEFENCE. (i"tom Our Own Correspondent.)" Stratford, Sept. 24. A case presenting some unusual feat*?r®s was heard at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Albert Vinaen, manager for the Marble Bar Company, Ltd., was charged before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., with, on August 20, having sold milk containing less than eight and five-tenths parts of milk solids other than milk fat, contrary to the form of statute provided in such cases. Mr. A. Coleman appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Francis G., Coleman, inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, said that on August 26, accompanied bv Constable Tizzard, he visited the Marble Bar and asked the young attendant for a pint of milk, f or which he paid -3id. He informed her that he was going to have the milk analysed by an analyst. The milk was placed in three small bottles, witness sealing them up in the shop. One he handed to the young lady, one he sent by registered post to ths Government analyst at Wellington, and one he kept himself (produced). To Mr. Coleman: He was quite certain he told the young lady he was going to send the sample to be analysed by an analyst. Ifr. Coleman, for the defendant, called Annie McDonell, attendant at the Marble Bar, who stated that she supplied the inspector with the milk in the presence of the constable. The inspector told her the milk was to be analysed. Mr. ( Coleman: Did he say it was to be analysed by an analyst ? Witness: Yes, I believe he did. Mr. Colemaa said the admission by the witness that the inspector had told her the milk was to be analysed by an analyst made a difference to his defence. The Act laid it down that an injector must state clearly that the milk was to be analysed by an analyst, and he had been wrongly informed that the inspector did not state this. He would, therefore, alter his plea to one of guilty, but wished his Worship to hear what Mr. Vinaen had to say about the matter, RAIN IN THE MILK. ™"^Li er ' ns€n > manager for the Marble _ Bar Company, Ltd., said that just prior to the day in question the milk had been delivered by a former supplier, and that was only the third day since the new supplier had started, ihe previous supplier had always taken the milk into the dairy, the usual practice being for the supplier to bring the »Uk in his own cans and tip it into the company's cans. On the morning of August 26, the new supplier brought the cans from out of the dairy on to the stand, tipped the milk Into them and did not take them back into the dairy. He also left the lids, off the cans. The boy was due to work at 8 o'clock, and b l s dut y was to tafie the milk into the shop. On this morning, witness came down at twenty minutes past nine, and found that the boy had not brought in the mUk, believing that it was still under cover in the dairy. The cans therefore been out in the open with the lids off for over an hour and twenty minutedj all of which time it was raining very heavily. The company did not wish t<& sell milk at all, but the public asked for it so frequently that they decided to supply customers. Mr. Coleman handed in several testimonials from the Marble Bar customers, to the effect that they were thoroughly satisfied with the milk supplied. Continuing, Mr. Coleman said that the mUk was well above the standard as regarded butter-fat, but there was a deficiency of other' solids. This was due to the rain water which got into the cans. , Witness said that on August 26 the company received 27 gallons of milk He had consulted Mr. F. J. McDonald manager of the Stratford Dairy ComPW. who had said that leaving the milk in the cajig in the rain would account for the deficiency of milk solids. The cans were of the largest size. The milk had not been interfered with bv him in any way. INNOCENCE PLEADED. Mr. Coleman contended that the deficiency of milk solids was not a very serious matter. There could be no inducement for the company to sell adulterated milk. The company had since purchased a lactometer, but that did not give them an indication of the amount of milk solids. They had now communicated with the Chief Health Officer at Wellington, asking how they could best test the milk before selling P uWic - If tlle J could not be satisfied that they, had a complete test, they would give up selling milk to the public, as they did ndt wish to run any risk. Sergeant Dale pointed out to his Worship thai) leaving the lidg off the cans was also an offence under the Act. -Mr. Coleman submitted that a statutory offence had been innocently committed owing to an unfortunate series of circumstances on that very stormy morning. Steps had since been taken to see that the milk was not left standing in the rain, and', in fact, August 26 appeared to be the only day when that did occur. He thought the ends of justice would be attained by recording a conviction without a fine The Magistrate convicted the defendant, and imposed a fine of 40a and costs