View report page

73
D 50, a highly adulterated sample, was also dismissed on production of
the Warranty.
Since these cases were heard the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act,
1915, previously postponed, has come into force, and the provisions of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Acts with regard to the Warranty defence are
amended by Section 9 of this Act in conjunction with the Third Schedule,
in which it is stated that In order to be entitled to plead a warranty as a
defence in any proceedings the retailer must, within sixty hours after the
sample of milk was taken, request the local authorities to obtain a sample
of milk from a corresponding milking, as soon as practicable from the wholesaler,"
and that " The local authority may take proceedings against the
wholesaler instead of, or in addition to, the retailer." A number of applications
for samples to be taken have been made to the Medical Officer of Health
since the Act came into force, but up to the present time the samples connected
with these requests have all been genuine.
With regard to sample C 24, the defendant stated, when the sample
was purchased, that the milk was sour and was to be used for cheese-making.
The milk was, however, perfectly fresh, and this fact was pointed out on the
certificate of analysis. The defendant's solicitor, at the hearing of the case,
admitted the offence and stated that, owing to the supply of milk running
short, a further quantity had been purchased elsewhere and this had proved
to be adulterated.
Sample E 34 showed a deficiency of 20 per cent. of fat. The vendor
stated that there was a continuous sale of milk to consumers while the cows
were being milked, and that the sample represented the milk of one cow only
and not the mixed milk of the herd. At his request, samples of evening and
morning milk were taken from this cow, together with samples of morning
milk from the remainder of the herd. The results of these analyses are given
in the following table:—