WATER IN MILK

Wairarapa Times-Age, 20 May 1943, Page 4

WATER IN MILK

PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST SUPPLIERS TWO DEFENDANTS FINED. (“Times-Age” Special.) , A case of some interest was hcai d before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., at the Carterton Magistrate’s Court ycsteiday. when the directors of the Dalefield Dairy Company proceeded aginst Robt. J. Gallon and Annie Meyrick for supplying milk to the factory for cheesemaking which was not pure milk, contrary to Section 15 (c) of the Dairy Industry Act, 1908. Mr D. L. Taverner appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr J. F. Thompson for Mr Gallon and Mrs Meyrick. Mr Taverner outlined the case, which was that water added to the milk had been a source of concern to the manager and directors for a number of years. The suppliers had on various occasions received notices from the company s secretary pointing out that watering of milk was becoming a serious business to the working of the factory, and pointing out to suppliers that if it continued steps would have to be taken to prevent the watering of milk. The Act laid down that no supplier shall supply to a dairy factory milk that was not whole milk, including the strippings. If the company succeeded in establishing its case, he was instructed to say that a heavy penalty was not beingpressed for, but that the case should be taken as a warning to factory suppliers.

Mr C. H. Barber, the company’s secretary. said the plaint was laid by him, acting under instructions from the directors at a meeting held on April 16, 1943. He said tests had been made as far back as 1933. Witness said a letter had been sent to Mrs Meyrick, pointing cut the prevalence of water in milk supplied to the factory. In March. 1935, a further test was taken, and Mrs Meyrick’s milk showed 13 per cent of added water. In November, 1939, a test showed Mr Gallon’s added water to be 5.4 per cent, and Mrs Meyrick’s 9.1 per cent. On October 23, 1940. a test showed that neither Mrs Meyrick’s nor Mr Gallon’s milk, along with other suppliers ,was over 3 per cent of added water. In January, 1943, the tests of the two defendants showed Mr Gallon’s milk to have 5.4 per cent of water, and Mrs Meyrick’s 9.1 per cent, and again in February, 1943, the quantity of added water was 5.4 and 13.6 per cent respectively, and both were liable for prosecution. Mr James Linton, factory manager at the Dalefield dairy factory, said samples of milk were sent to Mangaroa under his supervision by assistants. Two bottles of milk from a can of each supplier were periodically taken. One was, given to the supplier and one was sent to the laboratory for analysis by Dr. G. M. Moir, chemist at the Wallaceville Laboratory. The bottles were corked and sealed by himself personally, and each sample was sent to the laboratory sealed and stamped. On April 5 Mr Gallon and Mrs Meyrick’s son were at tfie factory and both saw the tests taken from theirs milk cans. Mr Linton produced his book of suppliers for the morning of April 5. He kept a record of suppliers’ bottles. Gallon’s number was 23, and Mrs Meyrick’s 43. These numbers only were sent to the laboratory, and not the suppliers’ names. Added water was a very definite nuisance. It added unnecessarily to the cost of production, and meant the employment of extra hands, besides firing, etc. Dr. Moir testified to making the tests. Three specific tests were made. Mr Thompson maintained that there was no positive evidence of added water. Milk kept ovex- night by some misfortune might have water added, perhaps by rain. He did not think the case had been proved insofar as added water by defendants was concerned. The Magistrate said each supplier had the privilege of receiving a milk sample, analysed and could bring it to court, and if this sample was satisfactory there could be no case. The Dairy Company did not press for a heavy penalty, and he would convict and fine each defendant £2 with costs and witnesses' expenses £4 14s.