View report page

29
It will be observed that during April in eight cases
reported advantage was taken by the defendant of the
provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts relating
to warranties. In six cases this defence availed to secure
acquittal and it was only owing to exceptional evidence
plus the bad record of the defendant in the remaining
two cases, that in all these instances the defence was not
successful.
In four of the cases referred to (and in one further
case in the next month) the warranties were granted by
one leading Company, and the Magistrate remarked that
the number of warranty defences set up in that Court
on warranties given by this Company during the time he
had presided there was approaching a public scandal.
The following paragraph appeared in the Press in
reference to a case above reported :—
After having been fined £75 at Old Street last
week for selling adulterated milk, the case of Thomas E.
Thomas, a milk dealer, of Longfellow Road, Bow, yesterday
again came before, the magistrate on the return
of a distress warrant marked "No goods." Defendant
now asked for further time to find the amount of the
penalty.—It was mentioned that since the fine of £75
was imposed defendant had been prosecuted for a further
similar offence, and another fine of £10 was standing
against him.
There were also many previous convictions, and
since 1907 defendant had paid £180 in penalties for
offences under the Milk Act. Now he said he was ruined,
though he asked for more time. Mr. Wilberforce
thought not. He had no goods, and there were other
matters impending. The alternative to payment was