View report page

98
While the caiman was in the act of adulterating the milk, in fact, he was
holding up the gallon measure which was full of water and was about to pour it
into the milk, one of our Sanitary Inspectors passed by within a foot of the van.
The carman looked at him and said jocularly in Welsh to the proprietor of the milk
premises "one of them." Both laughed. I must admit that the humour of the
situation struck me as well, as I heard and understood the remark. The adulteration
of the milk was continued immediately the Inspector had passed. When the
churn was practically empty, it was handed back to the proprietor of the premises
who was standing on the pavement the whole time. He tilted it over, so that the
remainder of the water in the churn was poured into the gutter.
The van containing milk thus adulterated with 10 per cent. of added water was
then driven off, and the milk delivered to various retail shops in the district. I
communicated with the wholesale firm, and two days afterwards, the Managing
Director kept observation with me, when a similar precedure was followed by the
carman and the proprietor of the premises. A summons was applied for by the
Company against the carman for wilfully damaging their milk, and against the
proprietor of the premises for aiding and abetting him. On the evening of the date
of the application the carman absconded. The carman who was employed by the
other wholesale Company and who had been seen doing a similar thing at the same
address also absconded the same night. Curiously enough, the carman of a third
Company who had been seen adding water from a horse trough to milk, also disappeared
after a summons had been applied for. Although a warrant was applied
for the absconding carman, he was not found, but the owner of the premises was
fined £5 for aiding and abetting.
The latter maintained at the trial that he did not know why the carman
called nor did he know what the churn contained. It is not surprising that the
defence was not believed when the above facts are considered.
The wholesale firms take a large number of samples from churns delivered at
railway stations from farmers, and great care is observed that no milk is delivered
to them, unless it is well above the standard.
Comparatively few samples for analysis, if any at all, are taken from their
carmen, while they are delivering the milk. It seems to me that the wholesale firms
prefer to rely on the warranty they receive from the farmers and on the warranty
they give to the customers, rather than to exercise greater care to deliver the milk
to their retail customers as they receive it. It is during this journey between the
wholesale trader and retailer that milk may be tampered with, and the general
public defrauded. Although the retail dairyman is not convicted, because he pleads
the warranty, yet he has the stigma attached to his name of being prosecuted
when he is often quite innocent.
The protection afforded by the warranty clause to wholesale and retail dairymen
is so often abused that unless it is deleted, or very much modified, the
adulteration of milk will be continued and the public defrauded. If it is retained,
the wholesale firm and the retail dairyman should be summoned on each occasion