View report page

2
i.e., a bottom limit milk, containing 8.5 % of non-fatty
solids. But neither of these certificates set out the
standard with which the adulterated milk had been
compared.
My certificate stated that the sample contained "12%
of added water—good average milk being taken as containing
12½% of milk-solids.'' The Government Analyst,
taking as standard the poorest milk that escapes being
condemned as adulterated, certified that the sample contained
"not less than 3% of added water." The Vendor's
Analyst, taking the same poorest milk as standard, but
estimating the non-fatty solids at a smaller percentage,
certified that his client's "sample was adulterated with
not less that 9% of added water." Thereupon, the Defendant
did not produce to the Magistrate the certificate from his
own Analyst, but he sheltered himself behind the more
favourable certificate given from the Government Laboratory.
And he did not "tender himself or his wife to be
examined on his behalf," as he is privileged to do under
the Act. Thus the learned Magistrate had before him no
evidence, except the two written certificates from myself
and the Government Laboratory.
5. The certificate of the Government Laboratory having
omitted to specify the standard of milk with which the
adulterated samples had been compared, the Magistrate
had no data for comparing the two certificates. The
prestige of the Government Laboratory inclined him to
think that the milk "contained 3% of added water or
thereabouts." He would probably have dismissed the
summons had not the solicitor for the Vestry then tendered
evidence proving a previous conviction of the defendant
for adulterating milk with 20% of water. Thereupon
the learned magistrate congratulated the defendant upon
having reduced his adulteration from 20% to 3%, and
inflicted a fine of ten shillings—leaving the Vestry to pay
its own costs.
6. It will be seen from the table at page 4, that
I had analysed the first portion of the sample upon
the day after it had been taken, and, therefore, that no
question as to loss of non-fatty solids by decomposition
during storage had arisen as to my portion of the sample.
The Vendor's Analyst analysed the second portion of the
sample after four weeks' storage. His certificate does not
show what, nor whether any, addition had been made to
the non-fatty solids on account of estimated loss by
decomposition during storage.
The Government Laboratory analysed the third portion
of the sample after five weeks' storage. It certified that
it had made addition on account of loss by decomposition
during storage, but it did not state the amount of such