View report page

76
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
Such a decision implies that A has been guilty of the adulteration in respect of which he
successfully pleaded his warranty at the hearing of the first summons. It appears, however,
to be impossible to reach A, who not only gets off this time, but successfully engineers the
next case on the same lines.* Two vendors at least have recently discovered the virtues of a
warranty defence, after being convicted several times.
Another difficulty arises from the multiplication of warranties relating to a single
sample:—
A, the vendor of the sample, buys under warranty, from a wholesale firm B, which firm
buys with a like condition from a farmer C, who, perhaps, to make up a deficiency, buys (also
with a warranty) from D.
Under such circumstances, proceedings would be necessarv in succession against A, B, C,
and D, and might involve going to at least three Courts in various parts of the country, as the
provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act of 1899 would not apply to proceedings against C and D.
This was decided in the case of Manners v. Tyler (1902). Even if the case be carried to the
last (first) warranty giver, failure is almost inevitable, as it is usually found impossible to prove
the act of adulteration. Moreover, the six months' limit imposed on such proceedings
(Whittaker v. Pomfret Bros, 1902), involves further hampering of efforts to check adulteration.
In this last respect it has still to be decided whether the six months' limit dates from the
contract to supply the milk, or from the date of delivery or purchase of the milk—each day's
supplv being covered by an invoice or label to the effect that the milk supplied is according
to contract. The Board of Agriculture favours the view that the limit runs from the day of
delivery of the milk.
* These statements are based on actual facts within the knowledge of the officials of the Department.