View report page

99
Warranty Defence in Prosecutions.—In any prosecution
under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the defendant is to
be discharged if he proves to the satisfaction of the Court—
(a) That he bought the article in question as the same in
nature, substance, and quality as that demanded of him, and with
a written warranty to that effect.
(b) That at the time of sale he had no reason to believe it to
be otherwise.
(c) That he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it.
By the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, Section 20:—
A warranty or invoice shall not be available as a defence under
the Sale of Food and Drugs Act unless the defendant has within
seven days after the service of the summons sent to the purchaser a
copy of such warranty or invoice, with a written notice stating
that he intends to rely on the warranty or invoice, and specifying
the name and address of the person from whom he received it, and
has also sent a like notice of his intention to such person.
The warranty defence in London is chiefly used in connection
with milk cases. In Finsbury the warranty was put in as a
defence in 1909 in three cases only. In none of these were preceedings
taken against the warrantor.
Enquiry was made from all the other metropolitan boroughs as
to the extent to which the warranty defence was being used in
milk prosecutions. Replies were received from 21—of these a
summary is here given. In these boroughs 9514 samples of milk
were taken, of which 928 were found adulterated.
The warranty defence was pleaded in 104 cases and the
warrantor was afterwards prosecuted in three boroughs onJy—
five cases in all. In eleven boroughs 328 samples of milk were
taken at railway stations in the various districts, and in five
boroughs action was taken against the consignors implicated—
altogether eight prosecutions.
G 2