View report page

223
Legal proceedings were instituted in each case. In some of the others
different preservatives were found, and slight adulteration, causing three
letters of caution to be sent to the vendors.
In one case a summons was taken out for displaying an improper
advertisement of margarine, contrary to the Act of 1907.
Also in one case costs of £2 2s. were allowed against the Council, as
the third portion of a sample was submitted to Somerset House, and the
result proved different to the Public Analyst's certificate.
Below is a list of "Samples" which were adulterated and the
Analyst's report of same:—
Margarine.—Containing 57.1 per cent. of butter fat (only 10 per
cent. allowed). Summons withdrawn, and £2 2s. costs
allowed defendant.
Butter.—Adulterated with 76.6 per cent. of foreign fat. Second
offence.
Defendant fined £10 and 23s. costs.
Milk.—Deficient in fat to extent of 15 per cent. Purchased from
itinerant vendor, previous convictions proved. Defendant
Company fined £5 and 23s. costs.
Butter.—Adulterated with 76 7 per cent. of foreign fat. Defendant
fined £4 including costs.
Butter.—Adulterated with 75.4 per cent. of foreign fat.
Summons withdrawn on payment of £2 2s. costs by
defendant. (By direction of Committee.)
Margarine. —Improperly advertising.
Summons withdrawn on payment of £2 2s. by defendant
(same defendant as above). (By direction of Committee.)
Milk.—Deficient in fat to extent of 8 3 per cent., purchased from
itinerant vendor (third offence).
Summons dismissed on production of warranty.
Milk.—Deficient in solids not fat to extent of 8.2 per cent., showing
an addition of 8.2 per cent. of added water.
Defendant fined £2 and 23s. costs.