View report page

104
vendor of two adulterated samples, both summonses were dismissed on a
warranty defence, that being the sixth occasion upon which summonses
against him had been dismissed on production of a warranty.
The retailer must now, in order to plead a warranty request the local
authorities within 60 hours after the sample was taken to obtain a sample of
milk from a corresponding milking from the wholesaler. Further the local
authority may take proceedings against the wholesaler instead of or in addition
to the retailer.
It is plain that the sample of milk taken from the wholesaler cannot be
the same milk, but if this sample should be below the standard it is probable
that the adulteration was carried out by the wholesaler or that his cows are
producing milk below the standard; if the sample be genuine the inference
is that the retailer is responsible for the adulteration. In this case (sample
F 9) three samples taken from the wholesaler were genuine samples containing
3.50 per cent., 3.65 per cent. and 3.70 per cent. of milk fat respectively, these
figures being considerably higher than the legal minimum of 3.0 per cent.
from which the deficiency is calculated. It was stated for the defence that,
although these samples were genuine the results were of no importance and
that the samples were merely taken to comply with the regulations so that the
retailer might be entitled to plead a warranty defence. The warranty was
produced and the summons dismissed.
If such a defence is to hold good in cases where the wholesaler's sample
is genuine, then there is no improvement on the old warranty conditions,
neither party can be convicted and the position remains as before.
The argument for the defence would no doubt have been very different
if the sample taken from the wholesaler had been adulterated. Such a position
would not be likely to arise here as proceedings (as in the case of samples
B 37 and B 61 in my previous report) would probably be taken against the
wholesaler only.
On the other hand many defendants have stated that they did not know
that a warranty could be obtained, others apparently do not bother to obtain
one ; the vendors of samples X 34, X 35 and X 37 which were deficient in
fat to the extent of 20.7 per cent., 14.3 per cent. and 28 0 per cent. respectively,
who were fined £3, £5 and £3 had all obtained their milk from the same wholesaler,
but not one of the vendors held a warranty.