View report page

87
3. Extraneous water and fat deficiency (3) viz., 3.4 and
10.6, 4.0 and 8.7, and 4.0 and 24.7.
4. Skimmed milk (3) extraneous water 7.0 per cent, fat
deficiency 52.0, 82.0.
5. Separated milk (3) extraneous water 3.0, 4.0, 4.0.
Of the total number of samples taken during the year under
report, 530 were taken on week days and 105 on Sundays. Samples
were taken on 20 Sundays in the year. Of the 530 week day
samples, 55 (i.e. 10.3 per cent.) were found to be adulterated,
while out of 105 samples taken on Sundays, 12 (i.e. 12 per cent.) were
adulterated.
A few years ago the percentage of samples taken on Sundays
found to be adulterated was considerably higher, but owing to
the more frequent sampling on Sundays, there has been a marked
improvement.
On the 25th January proceedings were taken for false warranty
against a firm of milk contractors, in respect of milk sold by them
to a retail vendor in the Borough. The magistrate upon the
facts admitted or proved before him stated that he should have
convicted if the company's servants who gave the warranty on their
behalf had been principals, but as he was of opinion that the section
of the Act of Parliament under which the proceedings were brought
implied that only such a person could commit the offence as was
capable of " believing " and as a Corporation having no mind,
could not exercise that faculty if it was not liable under the Section,
he dismissed the summons, but offered to state a case for the opinion
of the High Court.
The Council decided to appeal against the magistrate's decision,
with the result that the Court did not uphold the decision in the
police court, and the case was remitted to the magistrate for further
hearing and determination.
The magistrate on again hearing the case convicted and
inflicted a fine of £3 and costs.
Another warranty case, is of some interest, was that in which
a large firm of milk contractors were summoned for giving a false
warranty (the case against the retailer having previously been
dismissed). The defendants admitted under cross-examination
that the milk in question did not pass through their hands until
it arrived at Clapham Junction. It was put on rail in the country
by the farmer who had a contract with the defendant firm and
was consigned direct to the retailer in London. A fine of £3 and
14s. 6d. costs was imposed.