View report page

181
Sunday morning early. This was reported to be genuine. At the
same time a sample was taken from the churn, which was found
on analysis to contain 10.4 per cent, of extraneous water. The
inference as to the reason for the difference between the two
samples appeared to be that the milk in the churn was less likely
to be sampled than that in the hand-can. He was fined £5 12s. 6d.
(including costs) for this offence. The Inspector, after this conviction,
still kept his eye on this man, and noticed that, on his
way out of the Borough, he had changed his route, and, instead
of making for the direct and shortest one, he took a circuitous
course, leaving the lad who assisted him to serve his few customers
living in Battersea. The Inspector accordingly laid his plans, and
one morning saw his lad leaving a can of milk at a certain house.
From this the Inspector took a sample "in course of delivery." The
sample was found to contain 13 per cent, of extraneous water and
5.75 grains of boric acid per pint. After taking this sample, the
Inspector then hurried up and waylaid the principal. A sample
was obtained from his hand-can, which on analysis was reported
to contain 5 per cent, of extraneous water and 3.83 grains per
pint of boric acid, while another taken from his churn, on analysis,
was found to contain 8.5 per cent, fat deficiency, 3.5 per cent.
extraneous water, and 3.67 grains per pint of boric acid. This
man was convicted and fined £5 on each of three summonses, with
2 guineas costs, and his assistant was fined £5 in respect of the
sample taken from him, making in all £22 2s. He has since sold
his business.
These cases are remarkable for the persistency with which
this class of offender pursues his dishonest practice, and they
further illustrate the uselessness of inflicting small fines for repeated
offences. It is clear, therefore, that the small penalties
inflicted in no case appear to act as a deterrent, and that only by
more drastic action being taken is this dishonest practice likely to
cease.
A case to which the attention of the Health Committee was
drawn was that in which a farmer, who supplied milk to a firm of
milk contractors in the Borough, was prosecuted in respect of
nine samples of milk taken in course of delivery at the railway