View report page

55
water. In two instances in which the total solids were slightly below the Board of
Agriculture's standard the Public Analyst remarked that the samples may possibly
have been genuine.
Legal proceedings were instituted in 10 or 20 per cent. of the cases in which
the samples of milk were not up to the Board's standard, and in nine, convictions
were obtained. In one instance the summons was dismissed, a warranty being
produced by the vendor. In the remainder, amounting to 80 per cent., in which the
samples were not up to the standard, prosecutions were not considered advisable,
the percentages of abstraction of fat and additions of water being regarded as too
small to render convictions likely. The percentages in which it was not considered
advisable to prosecute in previous years were as follows : 66 in 1908, 65 in 1907, 66
in 1906, 60 in 1905, 55 in 1904, and 62 in 1903. These figures afford some indication
that greater care is now being taken to sell milk in accordance with the standard
fixed by the Board of Agriculture.
In the cases in which convictions were obtained the penalties for milk
adulteration amounted to £95 11s. 0d., which is equivalent to 28 per cent. of the
full amount of the penalties to which the defendants were liable as compared with
11.25 per cent. in 1908, 5.6 in 1907, 5.6 in 1906, 7.8 in 1905, 6 in 1904, 8 in 1903,
and 13 in 1902. Taking the fines and costs together, which amounted to
£110 17s. 6d., the average amount paid by a defendant on conviction was £12 6s. 4d.
as compared with £3 1s. 4d. in 1908, £1 13s. 7d. in 1907, £2 9s. 6d. in 1906,
£2 19s. 3d. in 1905, £2 6s. l0d. in 1904, £1 18s. 6d. in 1903, and £2 18s. 4d. in 1902.
The great increase in the figures for 1909 as compared with those for previous
years is due mainly to the fact that in two instances there had been previous
convictions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. In one there had been five
previous convictions and the Magistrate fined the defendant £30 with one guinea
costs. In the other case, the vendors—a company—against whom two previous
convictions were proved, were fined £50 with 10 guineas costs. In both these cases
the maximum penalties to which the defendants were liable were each £100.