View report page

104
house-to-house call. The inspector obtained two samples, but
being a stranger to the agent he was supplied with butter.
A subsequent purchase was made (February 6th) by a
householder who consented to act as a deputy to the inspector.
In this manner sample No. 37 was purchased, which proved to
be a mixture containing 97 per cent. of foreign fat. On completion
of the purchase the inspector demanded further samples
from the other parcels in the cart. The vendor supplied these
(Nos. 38 and 39), but declared them to be margarine. The
samples were sold contrary to the Margarine Act. Prosecution
followed and the vendor was fined £15 and 12s. 6d. costs in each
case.
A few days later (February 9th) we had reason to believe
that the same vendor was again in the district. A test sample
was obtained indirectly (No. 81) which proved to be margarine;
the vendor disappeared and no further opportunity occurred for
the purchase of an official sample. There is little doubt that
as a result of these salutory fines the practice has ceased so far
as our district is concerned.
Sale at the Counter.—In consequence of information
received test sample No. 136 was purchased. The analysis
showed the sample to be margarine, and an official sample was
obtained on the following day. This contained 83 per cent of
foreign fat, and the vendor was fined £3 and 12s. 6d. costs.
The vendor of sample No. 350 (90 per cent. foreign fat)
who was fined £10 and £1 1s. costs, was again sampled within a
short time, there being reason to suspect that he was continuing
the practice of substituting margarine for butter. A number of
test samples were first purchased, followed by an official sample
No. 485 (80 per cent. foreign fat). Proceedings were instituted
resulting in a second fine of £40 and 12s. 6d. costs.