View report page

128
The appellant was the proprietor of a shop, where he carried on the
business of a dairyman. On the 27th June, 1911, one B., who was an assistant
to the respondent, an inspector under the Food and Drugs Acts, went to the
appellant's premises, and demanded and purchased half a pint of cream, for
which he paid. Nothing was said by the appellant when the sale was made.
Before he was supplied with the cream, the said B. saw and read a notice which
was exhibited in a conspicous position in the appellant's shop, and which was
to the effect that all cream sold at that establishment contained a small portion
of boron preservative, not exceeding one-half of 1 per cent.. to keep it sweet
and wholesome. The cream sold contained a smaller proportion of preservative
than that specified in the notice. There was on medical or chemical evidence
before the Justices beyond the certificate of the Public Analyst. It was
contended that the sale of thecrcam was to the prejudice of the purchaser, and
that the onus was upon the appellant to show the added preservative was not
injurious to health.
Held (allowing the appeal), that the sale was not to the prejudice of the
purchaser.
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Lord Alverstone, C.J.. Hamilton and Bankes, J.J.)
Dairy Supply Company, Limited, (apps.) v. Houghton (resp.)
106 L. T. R. 220.
Adulteration—Milk—False warranty—Reason to believe that statements
therein were true—Power of Court to draw inferences of fact—Supreme
Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 2 —
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 20, sub-sect. 6.
The appellants, who were wholesale dealers in milk purchased from farmers
in the country, were summoned under sect. 20, sub-sect. 6, of the Sale of Food
and Drugs Act, 1899, for giving a false warranty in writing to a retail dealer
named J., who purchased the milk from them. A sample of the milk sold by
J. was found to be deficient in milk fat, and J. proved that he purchased it
with a warranty from the appellants. The milk from which this sample was
taken was supplied to the appellants under a warranty from the farmer who
supplied it, and the particular consignment bore a ticket warranting the milk
to be pure. No sample was taken by the appellants of this particular consignment.
and nothing was done to it before it was sent to the dealer, but the
appellants had from time to time taken samples of the milk sent by the
particular farmer, who was a registered milk seller, and it was always found
to be up to the standard. The appellants also took various precautions to
insure that the milk supplied to them was pure, and upon the day in question
they took samples of many consignments of milk, but none of the milk supplied
by the particular farmer. On these facts the appellants were convicted for
giving a false warranty to J., and this conviction was affirmed by the quarter
sessions and a case stated.
Held, that upon a case stated by the Court of Quarter Sessions the High
Court has power under sect. 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure)