View report page

84 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
Sub-Section 3 of Sec. 47 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. A case was asked
for and granted.*
Food Adulteration Case. Parker v. Suckling.— It is so rare to be able to get behind a warranty
defence that a note of this case will be of more than passing interest. On April 9th, 1905, a
sample of milk was purchased from Suckling, which was found on analysis to contain 12 per
cent. less than the proper proportion of fat or cream. On a summons being issued, notice of
warranty with a farmer in the country was given. When the case came on for hearing, an
adjournment was asked for by the Council's Solicitor and granted, in spite of opposition on
the part of the defendant's Solicitor. Nothing was said about the third (or reserve) part of
the sample. During the interval a complete chain of evidence was got together covering the
milk from the cow to the platform at Willesden Junction Station, where the defendant took
charge of it. At the adjourned hearing on June 9th the evidence was gone through, and not
shaken in cross-examination. One of the witnesses, a porter at Willesden, gave evidence
that the defendant received churns of skimmed (separated) milk by the same train as the
milk in question, and that he saw the defendant "tampering with the milk" at the station.
The production of the reserve portion was demanded, and when the wrapper containing the
bottle was undone, it was found that the cork had been forced out by the fermentation of
the milk, and that some of the milk and cream had escaped. The bottle was sent to
Somerset House for an analysis to be made, although there had been up to this point no
question as to the Public Analyst's certificate. The Analyst at Somerset House reported
that no analysis could be made, and defendant's Solicitor asked for the case to be dismissed.
The Magistrate decided that the refusal to analyse was not a point of law by which he was
bound to dismiss the case, and several previous convictions having been proved against the
defendant, fined him £40 with 10 guineas costs. A case was subsequently stated on the
question of the refusal by Somerset House to analyse the sample.†
* The case stated was argued on May 7th, 1906, before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Darling and
Channel. The Magistrate's decision was set aside and the case remitted to him to be heard again.
† While this report has been in preparation, the point has been argued, and the case remitted to the
Magistrate for re-hearing on one point—namely, as to any neglect in sealing the bottle. The Magistrate found
that there had been no neglect. The case has since that been settled by the defendant paying the fine and all costs.