View report page

130
In the remaining 24 cases, the results of the summonses were
as follows:—
(n) Summonses dismissed (17), on account of the following
legal technicalities:—warranties proved, 3 ; retailer already
convicted for the same sample, 1 ; wrong service of summons on
husband instead of on wife, 1 ; duplicate samples not having
been sent to farmers in all cases, 8 ; amount of adulteration too
small, 1 ; and delivery not made direct to Inspector by Guard of
train, who placed the milk churn upon the platform where it
remained 20 minutes before the Inspector took the sample, 3.
(b) Summonses withdrawn (6), on account of the following
legal technicalities:—amount of adulteration too small, 1 ; date
of hearing of summons too early (a clear 14 days not having
elapsed), 3 ; service of summons on local office instead of on
Registered address of the Limited Liability Company, 1 ; and
milk taken direct from same cow proving on analysis to be below
the Government standard, 1.
(c) Summons adjourned sine die(l), on account of the following
legal technicality, viz:—summons served on the Secretary of
a Limited Liability Company (this point being the subject of an
appeal in another case).
In 24 cases, no summonses were taken out for the following
reasons:—(1) amounts of adulteration too small (17);
(a) extraneous water, 2, 2, 2, 3 and 4 per cents, respectively;
(b) fat deficiency, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6 and 10 per cents, respectively ;
(c) extraneous water and fat deficiency, 3 and 7 per cents.;
(id) added preservatives, £ and 1½ grains of crystallised boric
acid per pint, and 0.0002 per cent, formaldehyde respectively •
(2) special samples taken (7).
(a) The sample was taken by the Inspector direct from a milk
can furnished with a tap about up from the bottom—the
can with milk in having stood overnight, and shewed, on