View report page

36
with air space, ventilation, water and supply. Precautionary measures for
preventing contamination during milking are also detailed, and the importance
of cleanliness in dairy utensils and the best means of cleansing them pointed
out. Some good advice is also given to the milk sellers, both wholesale and
retail, and I strongly recommend all those engaged in the production of milk
and its distribution to read the pamphlet and carry out the recommendations
of the Board.
It may serve a useful purpose to mention that copies may be obtained, free
of charge and post free, from the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries, No. 4, Whitehall Place.
LIABILITY OF PERSONS SELLING INFECTED MILK.
Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Company.
This case is of so much importance, both to the public and milk distributors,
that the following notes which appeared in Public Health for April, 1905, are
here reproduced.
"HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
"COURT OF APPEAL, 24th February, 1905.
"Before Henn Collins, M.R., Mathew, and Cozens-Hardy, L.J J.
"Infected Milk— Sale of— Breach of Warranty— Damages.
"When milk is sold by a dairy company for consumption as food there is an implied
"warranty on the part of the vendors that it is reasonably fit for that purpose,
"and they will be held liable for damages caused by reason of its being infected,
"although such infection was latent and not discoverable by ordinary care
"and skill.
"This was an appeal by the defendants asking for a new trial or judgment in an
"action tried before Grantham, J., and a special jury, and reported in Public Health,
"xvii. p. 260, where the facts are set out. The action was brought by the plaintiff
"to recover damages owing to the illness and death of his wife from typhoid fever,
"caused, as he alleged, by the milk which was supplied to him by the defendants
"being contaminated with the germs of typhoid fever. The jury found a verdict
"for the plaintiff for £106, the expenses to which the plaintiff had been put in
"consequence of the illness and death of his wife; and judgment was entered for
"him accordingly.
"Macmorran K.C., and W. Mackenzie appeared for the defendants, and
"contended that under Section 14 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, the
"defendants did not impliedly warrant that the milk was free from infection, as no
"care and skill on their part could have discovered whether it was infected or not.
"They also contended that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and
"that the Judge at the trial had misdirected the jury and introduced topics of
"prejudice against the defendants.
"Duke, K.C., and Holman Gregory, for the plaintiff, were not called upon, and
"the Court dismissed the appeal.