View report page

67
taken in which cases proceedings did not follow because of certain
informalities in the taking thereof. It will be seen that one of
these alleged that the milk was deficient in 73 per cent, of its
milk fat, and also contained 17 per cent, added water. We were
at considerable trouble and expense to endeavour to bring these
charges home to the person actually committing the offence, the
supply to the Institution being under contract, and in reference
to each sample the wholesale firm gave notice of warranty, in
practically every case there being a different farmer and source of
supply. We brought to the Court the various farmers and their
men ; the guards of the trains, and the station porters, in order
to enable us to trace the course of the milk from the cow to the
hands of the wholesale firm. It was surprising how slight
evidence was sufficient to establish the warranty, although, on the
other hand, the quality of the milk was vouched for by the
different persons right up to the time when it reached the care
of the wholesaler, and we were able to prove, it was in
fact in one case admitted, that the milk was changed from one
churn to another and other curious practices carried out concerning
it. In one instance, the warranty relied upon was given by a
person since deceased, and this fact, although known to the
defendant, was not divulged until after much trouble, needless to
say, we obtained a conviction. In the two cases connected with
this warranty, although we were able to prove five previous
convictions against the same defendant, relating to the milk
supply to the same Institution, yet the Magistrate only imposed
a fine of 40s. in these two cases, and 10s. in one other case,
holding that, as the authorities of the Institution had seen fit to
allow this Contractor to continue the milk supply, they had
condoned his previous offences in this respect.