AN INTERESTING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10162, 11 February 1911, Page 5

AN INTERESTING CASE.

I AFFECTING DAIRy .FARMERS; j An interesting case affecting those engaged in the dairy industry, was heard at Carterton on Thursday, when E. Buckeridge was charged with supplying milk to tho Parltvale dairy factory, which was not "pure milk" within the meaning of the Dairy Industry Act, 1908. Mr P. L. Hollings: prosecuted on behalf of the Parkvale dairy factory, and Mr C. A. Pownall defended. .Mr Hollings stated that the inform-: - I ation was laid under sections 15 (e) I and 22 (/) of the Dairy Industry Act, which provided for a penalty of £SO on any person supplying milk which was not pure milk, without a . statement in writing that it was not pure milk,, and prohibited the ush of proscrv itives or chemicals in milk - ; sold. [ A msinher of witnesses were examined,' including Mr B.W. Aston, the Chief Agricultural chemist for the Dominion. who testified that samples of the milk supplied to'the factory iiad been submitted to him for iiiatysis, and was found to contain formalin, which was a preservative, hut, was a dangerous and in- . juriou s; chemical, and should: ; not be used Jn:milk or in any. other foodstuffs--for human consumption. Mr JBpwnall called defendanfc. and . his who denied any Imow- '>• v ledga/q| the-formalin,: but .tlie istrate held that .it was immaterial ~ how the formalin got. into the milk, if it was; there at the time the milk ; was supplied to the-factory, and "that the statute cast the responsibility on the supplier, of seeing that the milk was "pure ihilk' ? at the time, it was f delivered, unless a statement' ip- writing "was given by him to the buyer at s the time, that the milk was not "pure milk." At the sam.vlime no blame could bo attached to Mr Buckeridge, 1 who was ignorant of tho adulteration. Hollings stated that the Dairy / heavy penalty, as tho cat.? was vturelv a test one, and was brought with the i object mainly of bringing the pro- v j visions of/the Statute before the- pub- [ lic f - so\that; dairy farmers arid others supplying-tnilk may know their position and .<SO prevent further trouble to the factories. ; ' The defendant was convicted and : . fined 10s and £6 costs. He will profitably appeal on the grou&d thai he • was irsnoccnt, and to have the matter tested in the Suprem6 Court.