View report page

The difference between the number of offences reported and the
number of summonses issued is to be explained as follows:—In two
cases a notice was exhibited in the shop at the time of purchase,
which notice was of such a character as to protect the vendor; in
five cases the sample was taken in the evening from a very small
quantity of milk which had been frequently dipped from earlier in
the day, and was found to be deficient in cream. In the latter
cases the Committee exercised the discretionary powers vested in
them, and in each case a caution was administered, the deficiency
being very small and it being very probable that constant dipping
without the necessary stirring would tend to remove an undue proportion
of cream. In none of these cases had previous convictions
been recorded.
Five summonses were withdrawn for the following reasons:—
In four cases two summonses were issued in respect of two offences
in connection with the same sample, and in each case the second
summons was withdrawn upon a conviction being obtained in
respect of the first. In one case there appeared to be proof that
the vendor had given some notice to the inspector's agent respecting
the nature of the article purchased, and the summons was
consequently withdrawn.