View report page

45
The case of obstruction noted above (Milk No.
377) deserves special mention. The defendant was a,
notorious offender, having been convicted of adulteration
on six previous occasions. In the last two prosecutions
fines of £20 and £30 respectively were imposed.
The defendant had been observed on this occasion to
be carrying out manipulations with various cans on his
barrow in the intervals between serving customers.
He was then accosted by an Inspector who took a
formal sample of milk from one of his cans. It was
observed that the defendant, on becoming aware of
the approach of the Inspector, hastily filled up this
can from the churn. This sample was subsequently
reported upon as being " genuine" milk. The
Inspector then asked for half-a-pint of milk from a
milk can hanging on the handle of the barrow. The
defendant made no reply but lifted the lid and the
can was found to be empty. Another can on the
barrow was then indicated and the defendant was
asked what the contents were. He stated that the
can was empty. On being pressed in the matter he
deliberately lifted the lid and spilled the contents over
the barrow. The Inspector was only able to conserve
a small amount of milk, not large enough for formal
division. On analysis this informal, sample was found
to contain 48 per cent, of added water. Other cans
on the barrow were then examined and four - of them
were found to contain altogether 6 quarts of water.
A sample of milk from the churn was found to be
" genuine."
The procedure of the defendant apparently was
to keep cans of water on his barrow and add genuine
milk to such water according to the " gullibility " of
the purchaser. He evidently calculated that he would
get off more lightly on an obstruction prosecution than
on a prosecution for extreme adulteration,