View report page

118
The warranty defence is not always available—there are
limitations to its use.
By Section 20 (Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899) a warranty
or invoice shall not be available as a defence to any proceeding
under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 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.
And the person by whom such warranty or invoice is alleged
to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and
to give evidence, and the court may, if it thinks fit, adjourn the
hearing to enable him to do so.
Since 1903, there have been in Finsbury 33 occasions on which
the warranty defence was put forward. And in seven out of these
33 cases there were convictions, even although the warranty was
put in evidence.
The circumstances of these convictions were as follows:—
1. The defendant admitted on oath that he added annatto to
the milk after receiving it from the warrantor—so that the
warranty no longer held good.
2. The defendant's books showed that more milk had been
sold than they had actually received. The warrantor proved to
the satisfaction of the magistrate that he had not tampered with
the milk. The magistrate stated he did not believe the evidence
of the defendant.
3. Notice of the warranty defence was not given to the prosecutor
within the statutory period of seven days after the service
of the summons. (Two cases.)
4. The warranty was given after the purchase of the milk.
5. The warranty was inscribed to a dealer other than the
defendant. The defendant was unable to produce a warranty
personal to himself.