View report page

134
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (INTELLIGENCE
DIVISION).
Extract from the Annual Report for the year 1904.
Weighing Accommodation. — An impression would seem to prevail among
farmers that it is incumbent upon railway companies to provide weighbridges
at all stations open to goods traffic, and several applications for assistance have
reached the Board from farmers and others who have felt themselves aggrieved
at the lack of weighing accommodation at the particular stations they are in
the habit of using. In most cases the Board have replied to the effect that,
although a railway company is empowered to charge a reasonable sum for
weighing merchandise at the request or for the convenience of traders, they are
not under any statutory obligation to provide weighbridges at their stations.
At the same time, the Board have intimated that they are prepared to make
enquiries and to endeavour to arrange for the desired accommodation in specific
cases in which the amount of traffic at a particular station seems to indicate the
need of such accommodation. Enquiries have been instituted into all the
complaints received, but in no case have the circumstances appeared to warrant
any representation being made to the railway company concerned.
Inability to pronccute in case of Adulterated Milk.—A sample of milk taken
by one of the Food Inspectors from a churn on a van at Euston Station proved
on analysis to be adulterated by 70 per cent, of added water, and a prosecution
was ordered to be taken.
After the sample was taken the carman said to the Inspector "It is no use
"denying it, for it is separated milk, and I may as well own to it." He further
stated in reply to questions that it was no particular farmer's milk, and that
he brought it from the yard to mix with the milk coming in by train, which
he then intended taking on his round and supplying to his customers.
Upon Messrs. Ricketts & Son being instructed in the matter they stated
that they could not advise proceedings because there was no sale to the
prejudice of the purchaser so as to bring the case within the 6th section of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875; nor could the Inspector proceed under
section 13 of the same Act because that section also requires that the milk
shall have been sold to him; neither could the circumstances be brought within
the 3rd section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act (Amendment Act), 1879,
inasmuch as that section requires that the Inspector shall procure at the place
of delivery a sample of milk in course of delivery to the purchaser or
consignee in pursuance of a contract for the sale to such purchaser or consignee
of such milk. The reasons why they did not advise proceedings may be
summed up in the circumstance that the sample was not procured at the place
of delivery or in course of delivery. The Solicitors pointed out, however,
that the carman is liable to be pros cuted by his employers if it be found that
he put water into the milk without their knowledge or authority.
The Solicitors were subsequently instructed to apply for a summons against
the carman and his employers. This they did, when the Magistrate intimated
that he could not grant a summons as he was of opinion that no offence