INSUFFICIENT FAT

Taranaki Daily News, 10 September 1940, Page 3

INSUFFICIENT FAT

delivery of milk "Never have I appeared in a case in which the defendant is so completely innocent of the offence with which he is charged," said Mr. J. H. Sheat in the New Plymouth Police Court yesterday when appearing for a milk vendor, who pleaded guilty to selling milk containing insufflcient solids other than milk fat and to two other charges arising out of the same circumstances. The other charges were of selling milk containing less than 3.25 per cent. of milk fat and of selling milk containing 9 per cent. of added water. Mr Sheat said that at the risk of being discursive he wished to tell the court the circumstances to subslantiate his opening statement. The . defendant was Fred S. Butler, New Plymouth, to whom milk was supplied by a vendor. At the time of the offence Mr. Butler was away from New Plymouth and his son, who was- also equally innocent, was in charge of the business. "The water was added by the person who supplied the milk to Butler," said counsel. "No good purpose will be served by mentioning names said Mr. Sheat, so I will refer to the real vendor as A and the delivery man as B, who is a brother-in-law cf A." Counsel Explains. When the result of the analysis of Butler's milk was received the inspector, as in all such cases tried to get a sample of the milk as it was supplied to Butler. Mr. Swindells therefore came to Butler's shop and waited for the person who delivered the supply. On the day of the arrival of B at Butler's shop at the usual time between 10 and 10.30 In the morning B, when he reached the shop and found the inspector there, engaged in conversation with Mr. Swindells for some time and then drove away without delivering any milk to Butler. That he intended to deliver the milk was shown In that while in conversation with Mr. Swindells B's wife rang up Mr. Butler and asked to speak to her husband when he called there with the milk. At about noon A's son arrived at Butler's shop with the day's milk supply and Mr. Swindells arranged to take a sample from it later, on condition that the container was left in the same condition as that in which it had been delivered. "This was done," said counsel, "but of course the milk was all right vvlien analysed." Another point made by counsel In explaining the unusual circumstances was in connection with payment for the milk. He said Butler usually paid for it through a third person but on the following day B had said to Butler; "Don't pay so-and-so for yesterday's milk; that was my milk.". Mr. Sheat added that Butler was concerned over the matter as he valued his reputation and had never had the quality of his milk questioned for over 20 years. "If he can't rely upon the honesty of the people with whom he has to deal he prefers to have nothing to do with the business of selling milk, which in his case is chielly by contract for the supply of ships trading to the port and he would be compelled to give up selling milk over the counter." Mr. W. H. Wodward. S.M., said the law regarded Butler as responsible for the purity of the product he sold, but the court would take a lenient view and enter a conviction on all charges but a penalty of £1 (costs and expenses £1 Os fid) on the principal charge only.