View report page

52
ranty as to its purity, and was sold in the same condition in
which it was received. The samples had been purchased by
the Inspector within a short time of each other on the same
day, and had been supplied to the retailers by the same
wholesale firm under identical warranties, and as both
showed, according to the Analyst's certificate, exactly the
same amount of adulteration, on which fact the magistrate
commented, summonses were issued under section 20 of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, against the wholesale
company for having given a false warranty in respect of the
milk.
The magistrate, after hearing the evidence, stated that he
was satisfied that the retailer had sold the milk in the same
state as he received it, and that it was in such a state when it
arrived at Paddington Station. He held that the wholesale
company must take every reasonable precaution to justify
their belief in the warranty, and they had not done so.
The contract with the farmer was not signed, and the company
had therefore no warranty from her to support their
own. The churns had been sent unlocked, so that it was an
easy thing for anyone to tamper with a churn during transit,
which was what had probably happened. The Company had
not insisted on churns being locked as they should, and
could easily have done, and therefore they had not satisfied
him as to the sufficiency of the reason for their belief. He
found the warranty given by them was false, and imposed a
penalty of £5, with ,£3 3s. costs.
The company subsequently appealed to the County of
London Sessions against the conviction, when, after hearing
the evidence and the arguments of the counsel for respondent
and the appellants, the Chairman (Mr. Wallace, K.C.), in
giving the decision of the Court, stated that the magistrate
had practically held that unless the churns were locked the
appellants had not complied with their obligations. There