View report page

78
One vendor, on an inspector asking for a sample of milk, poured his
supply into the road. He was summoned for obstructing an inspector in the
course of his duty and was fined £'20 (the maximum penalty) with £3 3s. costs
(see below).
Another vendor was summoned for refusing to serve an inspector, he was
fined £10 with £10 10s. costs. This case illustrates a weakness in the Food
and Drugs Acts. The vendor in question had been fined on numerous
occasions, including fines of £50 and £100; had he supplied the inspector
and had the sample proved to be adulterated, he could have been sent to
prison for three months or fined £100. In view of his record a very heavy
penalty would in any case have be imposed. The actual penalty inflicted
was the maximum for refusal to serve an inspector.
The vendor of E 62 and E 63 was the wife of the vendor who was fined
£20 for obstructing an inspector (see above). The husband had a very bad
record, including a fine of £100. After the conviction in which he was fined
£100, the business was transferred into the wife's name, though apparently
carried on as usual. Samples E 62 and E 63 were taken early on a Sunday
morning. Inspector Pavitt saw four milk cans outside the vendor's premises.
The male defendant removed two cans inside on the approach of the inspector,
but had not time to remove the others. Samples taken from the remaining
cans gave the results shown in the table. It was necessary for the summonses
to be taken out in the wife's name, as owner of the business. This meant
that the case could only be treated as a first offence (maximum penalty £20)
there being no convictions in the wife's name. As it appeared that the male
defendant was still interested in the business, he was prosecuted for aiding
and abetting. The magistrate considered the case a serious one and imposed
fines and costs as above, amounting in all to £111 10s.
Solids-not-fat are in solution in milk. They do not separate on standing,
and cannot be removed by mechanical means. Accordingly, a deficiency of
solids-not-fat points to watering. Watering, of course lowers the percentage
of fat equally with that of the solids-not-fat, but when the deficiency of fat
exceeds that of the solids-not-fat, or is the only deficiency, then some of the
fat has been removed by skimming or,—what comes to the same thing,—the
proportion of fat has been lowered by the addition of skimmed or separated
milk.
The deficiencies in Table J are calculated from the legal minimum figures.
As these are below the average figures for the milk sold in the Borough (see
Table H), it can safely be assumed that the percentages of adulteration, shown
in the table, considerably underestimate the extent of the adulteration in the
great majority of cases.