ADULTERATED MILK.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4002, 7 August 1915, Page 3

ADULTERATED MILK.

A- ' ■ PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SALE OF FOODS ACT. LOCAL DAIRYMEN BEFORE THE COURT. HEAVY PENALTIES INFLICTED. As a result of the tests made at Gisborne a short time b-aok of milk sold for human cohsumptiou. four local milk vendors were proceeded against at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning with olfeuces under the Halo of Foods Act. The informations were laid bv Inspector F. 0. • York, and included soiling adulterated milk and milk deficient in solids. The •charges wore preferred against the Kia Ora Dairying Company, George Torrio, Arthur H. Mead, and George Robb. Air K. W. Nolan appeared for The Health • Department. THE GASES AGAINST THE KIA ORA COMPANY. The Kia Ora Dairying Company were charged with having been twice guilty of eain: of the offences. Mr Nolan applied to . amend the charge lo make it apply to less solids only, and this was agreed to. Mr Nolan, in opening, said that so far as the Company was concerned the deficiency of solids was Miiall. Tinsolids required by the Act were 8.1 per cent. In one of the tests the difference was very slight, being 8.1/5. In another ease it. was 7.84. With regard to the adulteration in one case the test showed 10 per cent of water and in the other 7.4 per cent. Mr Stock pointed out that the Company did not milk their own cows. The milk was brought in to the factory, and the blame rested with the suppliers-. si His Worship: Have you no means of testing the quality? Air Stock: ATs, hut the trouble m regard to added water was caused through the cans being left out in vet weatlier. The manager had constantly instructed the suppliers that cans must not be left- out in wet weather. This season had been a very bad one, and cattle had suffered accordingly. He suggested that weakness in the grass may have accounted for the presence of water in the milk, as this had been found to have occurred nt other parts of the Dominion. The fault had not been committed by the Company, but by the people who supplied the factory. He drew His Worship's attention to an article in the X.Z. Dairyman, which threw some light on the question of added water. A sample of milk was found to contain 13 per cent of added water and a deficiency of solids. The Department could not understand this, and sent an expert to investigate. Milk was taken direct from the cow, and the test gave the same result —13 per cent of water. '1 he only reason that couln be given for this was the nature ol the season. This season had been a very had one for cattle, and it might be that the circumstances were the same in the present cases as givqn _in that cited in the “Dairyman.” Mr Nolan pointed out that even d it was shown that water had not -been added since the milk came from the cow. it had been decided in New Zealand that that was not a defence. Mi- Stock: I am not putting it forward as a defence. “The public must be protected in some wav,” declared ihe presiding Magistrate (Air AY. A. Barton, S.AI.) “This is an offence which calls for exemplary punishment-. Ihe cost of 1• v ing in Now Zealand is sufficiently high a-t”present without robbing people in this way. 1 say robbed, for 1 can tdescribe'it in any other way. It is deliberate robbery* on the part of somebody. lit is almost as bad as putting a hand in a man's pocket and taking Ins money. It is very hard to say how lor /r this sort of thing has been going nil ° We had some cases a year ago, when I imposed substantial penalties, but apparently it has not- had the desired effect. Defendants will be hoed .-CIO and costs, Y L ]Bs 6d, in each o. the four cases. the case -against TORRID. .Mr Stock also appeared for George 1 °.YI iwNolan 1 . said the solids revealed by the tests in this case were 7.73 per cent-., and 9.4 per cent of water had been added. , . . Mr Stock said his remarks in the other case applied in this. 'lhe presence of the water in the milk was du« more to the condition of the cow than to deliberate adulteration. Mr Nolan said that- even if that wore so it would not relieve defendant of his liability. . Air Stock : No, but it shows that the adulteration was not intentional His Worship remarked that defendant was convicted for The same offence last year, and ho would now impose a move substantial penalty. Defendant would be fined C 25 in each o th two cases, with costs .1. lbs Cxi.. l default six weeks’ hard labor in G'borne prison. I

THE CASE AGAINST MEAD. Mr Burn ard appeared for Arthur 1-L Mead, who pleaded guilty. Mr Nolan said the analysis showed 1,5.5 per cent of added water, although the solids were much the same as in the other eases, > .48. Air Burnafd said that there had been a shortage of supply oi milk this season, and defendant- had had to obtain supplies from other people. Mr Burnard pointed out- that no warning had been given to defendant that he was supplying inferior milk His Worship: I don’t consider ttuu. a. warning should be given in such cases. , . . , . Mr Burnard said that the object oi the prosecution was to ensure pure food being sold rather than to get- a large number oi convictions. Hail defendant been warned he could have had an analysis made to see whether his milk came up to the standard. “It is quite evident- that you have used the cow with iron tail pretty freely,” remarked His Worship to defendant. A penalty of ,L' 1-3 and £1 18s 6<l. with £1 18s Gd costs, was imposed in each of the two cases. “I ain going to stop this sort of thing if I possibly can. declared the Magistrate. AN AGGRAVATED OFFENCE. Air A. T. Coleman appeared for George Robb. “I am instructed to press for a heavy penalty in this case,” said Mr Nolan. He*said His Worship would see that the milk was below the standard. Solids other than fat which were required were B.' per cent. In this instance the analysis showed only 3.84. The fat solids roouired wore 31, per cent., whilst- in this case they were 2.40. The analysis, calculated on freezing point, showed 52.2 per cent of added water: more than halt the milk was water. The Department asked for a heavy penalty, and in addition applied under Section 19 of f lic Act, that notification of the offence should be published in the newspapers.

Mr Coleman said that Mr Robb had not been working; on the dairy mtrm for several months, and had a manager iti charge. When Mr Robb had been, in charge of the dairy himself the milk had fffeen frequently tested, and had always been found up to standard. Mr Robb had discharged the manager., and had done what he could to put the matter right when lie found that the milk was not up to standard test..

Charles H. Ferris. Borough Sanitary Inspector, said that he had frequently in.-pectod Mr Robb’s milk when lie (Mr Rohb) had been in charge of the dairy, and had always been found, to be v-ei'v satisfactory..

By Mr Nolan: "Witness made the tost With a lactometer. This was by no means as complete a test as an analysis. Witness had been getting his milk from \Mr Robb’s dairy, hut the quality had been so unsatisfactory

that he had told the milk vendor mat if it did nob improve lie would have to change his milkman. Later on he did change his milkman. The defendant- said that he had not been on the dairy for about 12 months. The dairy was in charge Of a manager, who was working on wages and commission. He had no idea tha- me milk was being adulterated. His Worship said tile circumstances in this ease were somewhat different to the others. It appeared defendant had a manager in charge, and swore positively lie did not know what was going on'. Although the fact that he did hot know did not, relieve him of liability, his Worship thought, taking ail tlie circumstances into consideration. if was a matter that should go in mitigation of tlie penalty, and he would not impose such a heavy penalty as he should have done under other circumstances. Defendant was fined £ls and costs £1 18s (xt, in default 6 weeks’ imprisonment on each charge, and an order was made to advertise the offence in three issues of the local papers.