View report page

96
with a written notice stating that he intends to rely on the warranty, and specifying
the name and address of the person from whom he received it. The Public
Health Committee resolved some years ago, that in every case where proceedings
were to be taken, the Sanitary Inspector should call and inform the dairyman of
the fact, and if he had a warranty, he must give notice within the specified time.
It has happened on more than one occasion that a dairyman has informed the
Inspector that he has no warranty, but a day or two before the summons was to
be heard, he called at the Public Health Offices and produced a warranty. On
two occasions they were so obviously ante-dated, that I cautioned the dairyman,
reminding him of the statements he had made to the Sanitary Inspector, and of
his liability to proceedings for producing a false warranty. As a result of this
caution, the warranty was not produced at the Court on the day of the trial.
Warranties have been produced in Court when the milk has contained as
much as 30 per cent. of added water. On one occasion, in June, 1913, one of the
Inspectors actually saw a milkman adding water to the milk, but when a sample
was taken on delivery for the purpose of analysis, an attempt was made to obstruct
the Inspector, and the assistance of the police had to be invoked. The milk
contained 22 per cent. of added water. Proceedings were taken against the
dairyman for obstruction, as well as for the adulteration, and he was heavily fined.
He had previously been summoned on several occasions for refusing to serve, and
for the adulteration of milk. He had a warranty from the wholesale company,
and had the Inspector not actually seen him add water to the milk, the milk
would have been sold to him in the ordinary way, and the warranty would
have been used as a defence. The same milkman has since been summoned for
selling adulterated milk, and he pleaded the warranty. We denied that
he had complied with the requirements of the warranty clause, inasmuch
as he had not given notice of his intention to the wholesale firm that
he intended to rely on the warranty. The Magistrate convicted, but the milkseller
has appealed. Since then he was actually seen adding water to milk, and when
the Inspector demanded milk from a certain can on his barrow he refused to serve
him, saying, that the particular can contained milk and water. He was, however,
prepared to serve him from another can, but the Inspector refused to accept it.
He had also on the barrow a can of water. He was fined £10 for refusing to serve.
It is only the unscrupulous dairyman that carries water on his barrow in a
separate hand can. He carries as a rule, three hand cans and a churn. One can
of pure milk, is carried to serve the Inspector, should he appear on the scene. One
contains milk and added water, and the other contains water. The water is added
to the milk on the round. It is usually done by first pouring water into the small
cans which hang from the barrow, and then adding milk shortly before the cans
are delivered to the customers. It may be claimed that the water is carried
for the purpose of cleansing the small cans, which are delivered and returned