THE SALE OF FOODS AND DRUGS ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3066, 10 December 1908, Page 3

THE SALE OF FOODS AND DRUGS ACT.

ALLEGED ADULTERATION.

EKETAHUNA CASES. ~Thos. Jaspers, milkman, was -charged at the Eketahuna Magistate's Court on Tuesday last, before Mr W. P. James, S.M., that he did - on August 20th unlawfully sell io one Philip Lansdown Hicks a certain article of food, to wit milk, which • contained water, and which is pro- . hibited by the regulations made under the authority of "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908," and also that he did supply milk which did not comnly with the standard prescribed. Mr Ulich prosecuted on behalf of the Health Department. ' Accused, who pieacled not guilty, stated that the cows were low of test at the time, and to his know- - ledge no water had been added to the """inspector Hicks, of the Health Department, gave evidence as to the steps taken by him to procure the samples which the Government analyst had declared were not up to the prescribed standard. His Worship stated that in face of the certificate furnished by the Government Analyst he must enter a conviction. . Mr W. A. Boyes, who was similarly charged, was represented by Mr Page. Inspector Hicks stated that be called at Mr Boyes' house on August , 20th and purchased 1£ pints of milk, and informed Mr Boyes that a sample was to be submitted for analysis. ' The samples were taken and corked, and sealed in the presence of Mr Boyes and his wife, and one was left at the house. By Mr Page: One bottle was halt . filled before he made a request to purchase 1§ pints, and then the other bottles were filled. He bad no recollection whether the samples were obtained from one or two receptacles. A 3.5 test was not good for the time •of year, though it was 25 points above the standard. If the milk had been skimmed the total of solids were only 5 points below the . standard, which was not very great. The milk was'purchased on August : 20th, and no information was laid till .November 3rd. He had had a conversation with Mr Boyes and told him as far as he—the witness—was concerned the sample was satisfactory the appearance of the /milk, the general cleanliness and the ixneinner of dispensing. ByMrUlrich: Accused told him the milk was fresh, and fit for consumption. Mr Page asked that the case be dismissed, as the procedure provided .by the Act was not complied with. "The Act stated that each sample should be identical, but in this in- - stance the samples differed materialiy. Counsel quuted an English judgment to bear out his contention, and referred to the fact that three months had elapsed before an information was s aid, his ciient in the meantime having 1 een led to believe that no litigation was likely to follow. W. A. Boyes deposed that he supplied ten families with milk, nut did not relj on this occupation for a livelihood. At 'the' time the sample was taken he was milking a selected herd -which was fed on dry food and was 1 rugged. Ihe 1 ntpectnr called at his house an was asked in. He stated that he nquired some milk for -analysis. Mrs Boyes supplied him with a sample, which was placed in a bottle. He then brought out two • other bottles, which were subsequently filled. The Inpseetor informed him what was to be done with the milk, and sealed the bottles in his presence. The milk was standing in two buckets, one of which contained . a larger quantity than the other and ■was the product of different cows. * One bottle of milk was procured from one bucket and the other two from another. Later Mr Hicks informed him that if the analysis was not satisfactory they had the two other samples to fall back on, but being confident of the result he had not had the test of his sample taken. He had never put a teaspoonful of water in any of the milk and never had complaints from any of his custimers. By Mr Ulrich: The milk was pulled up in a trolly from the cowshed in open buckets and it was drizzling with rain on the morning the samples were taken. Alice Maud Boyes, wife of the previous witness, gave evidence as to the Inspector calling at the house and to her supplying him with samples from two buckets, which represented milk from 'different cows. There was no water whatever added to the milk. By Mr Ulrich: I,t was not until the inspector had purchased and bottled the milk that he informed her wfcat he required it for. The inspector never asked her to mix the milk. Mr Page wished to call further evidence to show the quality of milk accused u-tually supplied. His Worship said this was not necessary, as he was satisfied on the point, ''"here was some doubt, however, if tne Act had been strictly complied with in tak ; ng the sample, his contention being that to get a representative sample milk should be taken from one vessel only, and not from two, as in this case. It appeared to him that the case had hung fire unusually long, due no doubt to the triviality of the offence. Mr Ulrich here read a telegram from Dr. Frengley stating that tha delay had been occasioned through causes attributable to the Gazetting of r^eulations.^ His Worship', in continuing, said there had been no deliberate attempt to increase the bulk cf the milk as in the law of average the analysis Showed that out of 100 gallons of milk there were only practically two of water, which might have got in anyhow. Under the Justice of Peace Act he had power to dismiss the information even in face of the certificate, and he would exercise that privilege and dismiss it. Had he been satisfied water was ' applied for the purpose of defrauding he would have taken a totally different stand. Undar the Act a person found guilty of such an offence was liable to a maximum penalty of £2OO or three months' imprisonment. The prosecution would no doubt affect the result desired. At this stage His Worship, upon looking up his decision in the pre- " vious care, said he would alter his ind and enter a conviction on both

charges. . Water had not been mix°d for the purpose of lowering the quality though they could not go back on the certificate. Mr Page made a strong plea for a dismissal. Mr James said that the milk standard was low, but the milk was below that, and consequently not whati t ought to be. As it took the Department three months to make up its minds to prosecute he would be quite justified in dismissing the case. Mr Page again asked that the informations be dismissed, and stated that his client intended to appeal on the judgment if it went against him. His Worship stated that if the Health Officer only wanted publicity this had been realised. He however, would this time concede to the request of counsel and dismiss both informations against Mr Boyes.— "Eketahuna Express."