MILK ANALYSIS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 7 October 1943, Page 3

MILK ANALYSIS

DEPARTMENT WITHDRAWS CHARGE AGAINST MASTERTON VENDOR. CROSS-CHECK NOT MADE. “I have had thirty-six years’ experience, and it is the first time that it has happened,” stated the Dominion Analyst (Mr Robert L. Andrew), in the Masterton -Magistrate’s Court this morning, when the police acting for the Department of Health withdrew a prosecution against William Gilliland, milK vendor, relating to a charge of having added 11 per cent of water to milk. The charge was withdrawn owing to the check and vendors’ samples differing from the original sample taken by the Department. The case was adjourned some weeks ago to enable a check sample to be analysed, as the analysis of the vendor’s sample and the Department’s sample did not agree. Senior-Sergeant C. Murphy intimated that the police wished to withdraw the prosecution as the check sample analysis by Dr. Moir, of the Dairy Laboratory at Wallaceville closely agreed with the analysis obtained privately by Mr Gilliland. Dr. Moir’s report was lengthy, involved and highly technical, and the Senior-Sergeant suggested that the Court should hear Mr Andrew and Dr. Hubert Smith, Medical Officer of Health for Wellington. Mr. Lawry said he savz no reason •why the time of the Court should be wasted.

Senior-Sergeant Murphy said the case was the first of its kind in New Zealand.

Mr. Macfarlane Laing, on behalf of the Milk Vendors’ Association, said the present position gave the association concern as in the past members had relied on the original analysis by the Health Department, Throughout the Dominion, vendors generally were reliable and honest, but were in the hands of the people who supplied them. As a rule the analyses were not questioned, but in this case a vendor had questioned one and had found that instead of there being eleven per cent, of added water' there was in fact none. The vendors were concerned and felt they could not have confidence in future analyses by the Department. Mr. Laing said that the Department’s analyses should surely be correct. The confidence hitherto placed in the original analyses had been undermined. Mr. Lawry said in view of the position he would hear Mr. Andrew’s explanation. Mr. Andrew said the Department’s analyist who made the original test was a man of wide experience, but in the present case he had found that a cross-check had not been made as was usual. Mr. Andrew said he would not be prepared to vouch for the analysis that was made. Had a cross-check been made he would have been in a position to vouch-for the analysis.. He said he was aware of the implications, as he had had 36 years’ experience and it was the first time that it had happened. Mr. Laing urged that the Department should shorten the time between the taking and the returning of the samples. Mr. Andrew said he would make representations in the matter. In asking for costs, Mr. Laing said his client had incurred expense and the prosecution had been commented on by the public. The Dominion Analyst had fairly admitted that a mistake had been made.

Mr. Lawry awarded £2 4s 6d expenses and £3 3s solicitor’s fees against the Department.