View report page

53
In 47 of the samples water was certified to have been added; in 4 the
amount was more and in 43 it was less than 5 per cent., taking the standard of the
Board of Agriculture. In 33 the samples showed deficiencies in milk fat; in 16
the deficiency was more, and in 17 it was less than 5 per cent. In 6 instances both
fat had been abstracted and water added. One of the samples contained traces of
artificial colouring matter. None showed the presence of preservatives. One
sample had .02 per cent. of foreign matter present, mainly breadcrumbs.
Legal proceedings were instituted in 26 or 24.0 per cent. of the cases in which
the samples of milk were below standard, and in 13 of these convictions were
obtained. In eight instances the summonses were dismissed, warranties being
proved, in three cases the defendants were ordered to pay 23s. costs and in one case
two guineas. The summons was dismissed in another instance but the defendant
paid 23s. costs. With regard to the remainder of the samples below standard
the small percentages of adulteration rendered it so very unlikely that convictions
could be obtained, that prosecutions were not considered advisable. In three
instances letters of caution were sent to the vendors. The percentage of the
adulterated samples in which it was not thought advisable to prosecute was 78
as compared with 77 in 1913, 61 in 1912, 65 in 1911, 69 in 1910, 80 in 1909,
66 in 1908, 65 in 1907, 66 in 1906, 60 in 1905, and 55 in 1904.
In the cases in which convictions were obtained the penalties for milk
adulteration amounted to £28, which is equivalent to 3.3 per cent. of the full
amount of the penalties to which the defendants were liable as compared with
4.6 per cent, in 1913, 6.9 in 1912, 6.6 in 1911, 4.4 in 1910, 28 in 1909, 11.2 in 1908,
5.6 in 1907, 5.6 in 1906, 7.8 in 1905, 6 in 1904, 8 in 1903 and 13 in 1902.
Taking fines and costs, which in the aggregate amounted to £47 19s. 0d., the
average amount paid by the defendants on conviction was £3 13s. 9d., as compared
with £2 14s. Id. in 1913, £3 15s. 5d. in 1912, £2 8s. 3d. in 1911, £1 11s. 6d. in
1910, £12 6s. 4d. in 1909, £3 Is. 4d. in 1908, £1 13s. 7d. in 1907, £2 9s. 6d. in 1906,
£2 19s. 3d. in 1905, £2 6s. lOd. in 1904, £1 18s. 6d. in 1903, and £2 18s. Id. in
1902. The marked excess of the figures for the year 1909 was due to two
defendants being very heavily fined.