View report page

282
1909]
To the Chairman and Members of the
Public Health Committee.
The Prosecution of the North-Eastern
Dairy Company, and its Lessons.
Gentlemen,—The defendant company were charged with selling milk
which contained 6 per cent. of added water, and in defence pleaded warranty.
In the end the magistrate inflicted a fine of £l00 and allowed 20 guineas
costs.
This prosecution has thrown no inconsiderable light on the practices
of some members of the milk purveying trade in London, and probably
also of the country.
In the first place it proves incontestably that warranties are pleaded,
as I have long said they were, to cover the misdeeds of the purveyors.
In the second place it conclusively proves that it is not an uncommon
practice for milk purveyors to add separated milk to their milks.
And in the third place it affords strong support to the argument that the
official minimum standard for milk is too low.
1. The defendants in this case had been suspected of adding separated
milk to their whole milk, and it was because of this suspicion that I instructed
your solicitor in Court to cross-examine the witnesses on the point. Of
course, the suggestion that it was done was denied, but you know that on the
second day's hearing it was admitted. Indeed, one of the witnesses treated
this addition in a most off-handed manner, saying it was quite a common
practice in the trade, and conveyed the impression that it was not looked on
by them as an adulteration—as if he would say, "everyone did it! why
shouldn't we? "Well, if one might judge by the analogy of other foods,
they would have only to do it long enough without detection Jor the practice to have
become a" custom of the trade," and then it would have been a valid defence!
But I must not pursue this argument lest I shall be drawn into a by no means
brief discussion.
The defence set up by the company and supported by witnesses was
warranty, on which they held they could legitimately rely, although
separated milk had been added, because the charge against them was
for the adulteration of their milk with water, which they entirely denied.
This was, of course, only an excuse to get out of an untenable position for
they knew, or ought to have known, being in the trade so long, that a