View report page

158
In 61 samples of milk adulteration, 52 summonses were
taken out, and in 36 cases convictions were obtained, with
penalties varying from a minimum 5/0 (with 16/6 costs) to
a maximum £10 (with 16/6 costs).
In 5 cases, no penalty was inflicted, but simply costs were
allowed.
In the remaining 16 cases, the results of the summonses
were as follows: —
(a) Summonses dismissed (10) on account of the following
legal technicalities: warranties proved, 5, and
contrary proved 5.
(b) Summonses adjourned sine die (1) on account of
the following legal technicality, viz: Defendant in hospital.
(c) Summonses withdrawn (5) on account of the following
legal technicalities: contrary proved, 3; and by
order of the Public Health Committee and Council, 2.
The 2 summonses, in connection with which the Council
decided to take no action, refer to samples 103 and 108 milk
(taken from a farmer's consignment). The samples on
analysis were certified by the Public Analyst to be deficient in
milk fat to the extent of 9 and 7 per cent. respectively—the
percentages of milk fat and milk solids other than milk fat
being 2.73 and 9.13 (total solids 11.86) and 2.79 and 9.03
(total solids 11.82).
These analyses shew that, whilst the milk fat in each
case falls below the minimum 3 per cent. mentioned in the
Milk Regulations of the Board of Agriculture, the total
milk solids and the solid's other than milk fat were above
the normal. A letter has been written to the Board of Agriculture,
asking for its instructions in connection with such
cases, and the Board replied that the two paragraphs of the
Sale of Milk Regulations referring to (1) milk fat, and (2)