View report page

78
sold by the retailer having been previously sampled and found below
the limit (including cases where a warranty defence was set up).
Proceedings were taken against the vendor of the adulterated
sample.—See No. 388 s. in list of prosecutions.
Infringement of Section 9, Sale of Food ancl Drugs Act, 1899.—
Four persons were cautioned for failure to have name and address on
milk cans.
Milk and Cream Regulations, 1912.—When these regulations
were issued, the City Council took steps to bring them to the notice of all
persons selling milk and cream in dairies, shops, hotels, restaurants, &c.
The Council came to the conclusion that at first it was unnecessary
to take samples specially under the regulations, in view of the number
of samples which were taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts,
and also because by taking the samples under the latter Acts, they were
enabled to take proceedings under either the Sale of Food and Drugs
Acts or the regulations, whichever seemed the more suitable for the
particular case.
In all cases the Public Analysts examine milk and cream for preservatives.
A list is appended in the forms asked for by the Board:—

(1) Milk.—Preservatives were found in five samples of milk out of
a total of 910 examined. Four contained traces of formaldehyde and
one 6"13 grains of boric acid per pint.
(2) Cream.—In the sixty-three samples of cream—net sold as preserved
cream—seventeen contained preservative (boric acid), varying
from 1*4 grain up to 41'279 grains per pound. Explanations were
asked in eight instances.
Eight vendors were cautioned for selling preserved cream as cream,
without proper labels. In one case, No. 384 s, on a second omission,
proceedings were taken under the regulations, but were dismissed, on
the defendant showing that the omission to label was not " wilful"—
Public Health Act, 1896, Section 1 (3)—as he had supplied the shop
manager with a supply of labels and had given instructions that they
were to be used.