PURE MILK

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 August 1942, Page 2

PURE MILK

SUPPLIES TO CHEESE ! FACTORY MAGISTRATE GIVES RESERVED JUDGMENT. CASE OF INTEREST TO DAIRY FARMERS. Reserved judgment has been given by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., in a case of some interest to dairy farmers and factories, relating to the meaning of pure milk as defined in the Dairy Industry Act, 1908. Henry L. Gray was charged with, on January 14, at Greytown, having supplied the Grey town-Wairarapa Dairy Co., Ltd., with milk which was not pure milk, contrary to Section 15 (c) of the Dairy Industry Act, 1908. The information was laid by the Director of the Dairy Division, for whom Mr R. R. Burridge appeared. Mr J. F. Thompson, Greytown, represented the defendant. According to the Magistrate's judgment, the facts were not in dispute. Admittedly the defendant separated some of his milk, retaining for calf feeding a substantial amount of skim milk and added the resulting cream to the unseparated milk. It was claimed for the prosecution that by so doing defendant had deprived the factory of the essenttial cheese-making constituents contained in the skim milk and there was also an allegation that as payment was made according to the fat content of milk, a supplier of milk high in fat content received more than he should be entitled to, as such milk made less cheese per pound of fat, it being the cheese product which provided the pool out of which distribution was made but on a butterfat supply basis. There was no suggestion that the defendant had given to the dairy factory any written notice that the milk he had supplied was not pure milk aS defined or had even notified of the fact of the added cream so as to entitle him to claim to be within the terms of the exemption. The defendant claimed that his practice did not cause the milk supplied to cease to be ‘pure milk” within the meaning as defined, by the statute. It was only fair to the defendant, observed the Magistrate in his judgment, to say that what he did was not with the view to perpetrating any fraud on the company—indeed the milk was richer in some respects, c.g., in milk fat than when it was drawn from the cow—but nevertheless his act in abstracting the skim-milk and adding cream did constitute an infringement of the statute, for there was an abstraction by the process adopted of the casein and other, solids not fat. The fact that defendant was paid foil the milk on the basis of the butterfat content made no difference. That basis was only adopted on account of its convenience, it being assumed that the milk would be pure milk within the meaning of the statutory definition and accordingly included the casein and other solids not fat which were so essential in cheese making. But when these essentials in cheese making were extracted or reduced, the amount of cheese which could be produced from a given, quantity of niilk -V was also reduced. When milk was to be *. used for cheese making, the casein content was nearly twice as important as the fat content in assessing the amount of cheese which could be made from it. ‘I repeat, for the benefit of the defendant, stated the Magistrate, “that the milk in one sense was ‘pure’—that is, free from impurities and also that it was richer in quality as regards fat but what he supplied was not ‘pure milk’ within the meaning of the Act, as some of the constituents of natural milk had been extracted. Accordingly he must be convicted.” It was intimated on behalf of the prosecution that the proceedings were brought not with the view to obtaining the imposition of , a*lieavy fine but in the hope that, if successful the publicity that would thereby be given would act as a deterrent to any persons who might be tempted to infringe the statute in this respect. The Magistrate accordingly did not impose a penalty but ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the prosecution. £3 13s.