View report page

182
station, and reported to the Public Analyst to be adulterated.
These samples had been taken at the request and on the complaint
of the consignees as to the quality of the milk supplied from this
farmer, and whose representative attended with the Inspector at
the railway station for the purpose.
At the time it appeared to me to be open to objection that
preconcerted arrangements of this character should take place,
but as the samples had already been taken when the matter was
reported to me, I could not interfere. My subsequent report to
the Health Committee on this matter states: —
. . . It seemed to me undesirable to sample farmer's milk
at the request of a particular contractor, that such procedure laid
the Sanitary Authority's action open to misconstruction, and
might even, in the hands of an unscrupulous person, lead to actual
injustice, and, furthermore, that under such a preconcerted arrangement
the Sanitary Authority might be made a catspaw of.
I instructed the Inspector accordingly, in future, to take
samples in the ordinary way, and promiscuously from several
supplies."
The view taken by me was strongly supported at the hearing
of the case. It came out in the evidence at the Police Court that
there had been a dispute between the contractors and the defendant,
and that some agreement had been drawn up, in which,
in consideration of the defendant consenting to the deduotion of
£175 for breach of contract, the contractor was not to take any
proceedings for breach of contract in the Police Court or elsewhere.
The Council's Solicitor very properly pointed out to the
learned Magistrate that until that moment he knew nothing of this
private arrangement. The Borough Council was simply there to
represent the public.
The defendant was convicted in respect of all the nine
samples, and fines and costs amounting to £32 12s. 6d. were
imposed.
My report to the Committee in reference to this continues : —
'"The facts to which I have drawn the Committee's attention