View report page

20
One glaring instance of the abuse of the Warranty Clause is worth repeating.
It is that of a milkman residing in our district, who was convicted 17 times—
11 summonses were for adulteration, 5 for refusing to serve the Inspector with milk
and 1 summons was for obstructing the Inspector. On the latter occasion, the
Inspector actually saw him adding water to the milk, and when he demanded
a sample from the mixture, the milkman tried to upset the can. A struggle
ensued and most of the milk was spilt, but sufficient remained in the can to be
analysed. This was divided into three parts in the ordinary way, and it showed
22 per cent, of added water.
He was prosecuted on several occasions after this occurrence, and although
convicted several times, the summonses were dismissed on a Warranty on 6 occasions,
once when the milk showed 21 per cent, of added water. I am glad to state that
this milkman will not defraud the public in our district in a similar way again. He
was caught red-handed deliberately adding water to milk. I reported the matter
to the Local Food Committee and was instructed to prosecute him under the Milk
(Amendment) Order, 1917, No. 1317. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment,
and his brother, who was assisting him in the transaction, to three months,
and his name was removed from the register of milk sellers.
The reason I remind you of this case is to show how easily a dishonest milkman
can evade the Act by pleading the Warranty Clause. His past history is not taken
into consideration, nor is the fact that he is continually pleading this defence. In
many cases where the milkman has often successfully pleaded the Warranty
Clause, the Public Health Committee in the past, in considering the report as to
whether proceedings should be instituted or not, decided that no action should be
taken, well knowing that it would be waste of time and money to do so. The
Warranty Clause is intended to protect the honest tradesman; but it is a pity
that no provision is made to protect the general public against the fraudulent
trader.
The Warranty Clause was inserted in the Act to protect the honest trader.
From that point of view it may be useful, but the honest trader if he suffers an
injustice, from the unlawful acts of the wholesale dealer and his servants or the
farmer, has his remedy, but the defrauded general public has no remedy at all when
the Warranty is abused so flagrantly as it is at present.
At the present time, with the law as it is, a dishonest milk vendor, after
obtaining a Warranty from the wholesale firm, can sell adulterated milk with
impunity. An appearance at the Police Court when he is caught is no deterrent,
as he is confident of the case being dismissed.
The Milk and Dairies Bill, 1915, in my opinion, should be immediately put
in force and the Ministry of Health should make such orders under it as it may
think advisable to put an end to the scandal that now exists.