View report page

39
humour of all this is emphasised by the fact that, on the
defendant's vehicles and vessels are the words:—"Special
Milk for Infants and Invalids" and "Nursery
Milk."
In the exercise of my discretion, I, on the receipt
of the certificates from the Public Analyst, judged it
necessary to issue summonses in respect of all the adulterated
samples, knowing that probably a defence would
be set up on his behalf in respect of Nos. 367 and 369 to
the effect that, as he had declared to Mr. Weeks that
these samples were "Milk and Water" a sufficient
notice had been given in accordance with the Act, and
that he could not, therefore, be convicted in respect
of these. The point of importance here for the public
is that, although a large number of customers are seen
to be served with this mixture, no notice whatever is
given to the general customers, but that a notice given
to the officer who defendant knows perfectly well is
there for the purpose of enforcing the Act, saves him
from being convicted whilst permitting the public to be
defrauded.
On the summons being returnable, the defence, as
I had already anticipated, was set up in respect of these
two samples, and with regard to the two other adulterated
samples, an application was made to the Court
that they should be sent to Somerset House for analysis
and report—the two genuine ones to be included. At
this time the Counsel contended that all four of these
samples came out of one churn, and if two were genuine
Mr. Stokes had made a serious mistake. The result
of the Government report disclosed, as to two of them,
that there was unfortunately a technical difference