View report page

123
demanded. H. had been supplied with the milk under a contract to
send him pure milk, and it was sold as delivered.
Held, that this was no defence under 38 & 3 Vict. c. 63, s. 25, as it was not a
written warranty of the specific article sold.
Extract from the " Justice of the Peace," November 23, 1901. (p. 743.)
June 6, 12.
Elliot v. Pilcher.
Sale of Food and Drugs—Milk—Adulteration-—Warranty in writing, sufficiency
of—Sale, of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 9, 25.
The respondent sold milk by retail which was supplied to him by the
wholesale dealers under the following written warranty : —
" We hereby warrant that each and every supply of milk sent by us shall
be new milk, unadulterated, with all its cream."
In proceedings against the retailer for selling adulterated milk,
Held, that the warranty was a sufficient warranty to form a defence under
the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 631, s. 25.
Laidlaw r, Wilson (1894), 1 Q.B. 74 ; 58 J.P. 58 followed.
Harris v. May (1893), 12 Q.H.I). 97; 48 J.P. 881 dissented from.
Extract from "Public Health," August, 1906. (p. 633,)
May 29th, 1906.
(Before Lord Alverstone, L. C. J., Ridley and Darling, J. J.)
Waits r. Stevens.
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875—Milk—Warranty—Connection between
milk sold and the warranty given.
As a defence to a summons for selling milk not of the quality demanded, the
defendant set up a warranty given some months previously which was as
follows :—" I guarantee that the milk supplied by me to Mr. Stevens is
perfectly pure, and with all its cream us the cow gives it."
Held, by Alverstone, L. C. J., and Darling, J. (Ridley, J., dissenting) that
this was not a good defence, as there was not a sufficient connection
between the warranty and the particular milk sold.
This was a case stated by the Justices of Uxbridge on the hearing of an
information under Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875,
charging the respondent Stevens with selling milk not of the nature, substance,
and quality demanded, inusmuch as it contained 16 per cent, of added water.
The milk was sold on December 28th( 1905. It had been supplied under one
contract, but before the delivery of any milk, Mott had given or sent to the
respondent a letter in the following terms :—" I guarantee that the milk
supplied by me to Mr. Stevens is perfectly pure, and with all its cream as tlie
cow gives it.—Francis Mott." Both Mott and the respondent intended this
to be a continuinar warranty. The milk was sold under no warranty other