View report page

22
In cases where the wholesale dealer happens to be a farmer
originally producing the milk from his own cows, such proceedings
are then varied to the extent, that instead of relying
upon a warranty, the defence to be set up is that the milk in
question has been sold and delivered in all respects as the cow
gave it, and on the authority of Smithies v. Bridge, (1902),
2 K.B., 13, and later, Wolfenden v. McCullock, 92, L.T.,
857, the information and complaint is in due course dismissed.
The precedure has become quite stereotyped and general,
even in cases where the deficiency in butter fat has amounted
to 28% less than the proper amount, the only variation to its
complete success appears to be mainly in the case of small
retail shop-keepers, innocent alike of any tampering with the
milk or the informed subtlety necessary to escape a conviction
where detected.
Recently this Authority has prosecuted shop-keeper, contractor
and farmer, with the usual unsatisfactory results, each
and every one of them put up the well-known defences
successfully.
In the result it is found apart from the inducements to
manufacture the requisite warranties and other evidence that:—
(a) In the present state of the law, the protection intended
to ensure to the public, a milk supply up to the
standard fixed is in the main, non-existent.
(J) That the standard of milk as fixed by the order of the
Board of Agriculture no longer obtains, and that such
order has been rendered meaningless.
(c) That in the present circumstances, the taking of samples
for analysis, and the institution of legal proceedings
calculated to terminate unsuccessfully can lead to no
effective results, and
(d) That having regard to the importance of this matter
the Government should, in the public interest give it
their earnest and immediate attention and legislate
accordingly.