View report page

94
of it is due to a common belief that a certain amount
of admixture with water is allowed. Indeed it was
asked by a witness for defendant in the case of
No. 77 whether a certain dilution was not permitted.
This was a contested case of some public iuterest,
and was supported on the part of defendant by the
evidence of Dr. Redwood. My certificate stated
that the Milk was admixed with 7£ per cent. of
added water. It was contended by the defence, on
the part of the scientific witness, that it was possibly,
but not probably, a pure milk. The Magistrate,
Mr. Chance, before whom the case was heard,
suggested that it should be called a "poor'' milk,
intead of a pure milk, on account of its low specific
gravity and poverty as to butter and cream. For
myself, I could not for a moment admit the plea of
natural poverty. I reminded Dr. Redwood that he
was President of the Society of Public Analysts, and
I, one of its Council, at the time that an agreement was
come to as to the nature and quality of milk. I also
suggested to his worship the Magistrate that, as
there was no dispute in the case of this sample in
respect to its being an admixture from a herd of 18
cows, that the herd should be re-milked and the
sample taken analysed by Dr. Redwood and myself.
Mr. Chance, seemed to welcome the suggestion which