View report page

31
It is provided in the Act of 1899, that the Warranty defence
shall not hold good unless seven clear days' notice is given to the
purchaser of such intention, with the name and address of the
Warrantor. But even this will be of little service to us, for proceedings
must be instituted and summonses served within 28 days,
and not heard within 14 days from date of service. It frequently
happens that 18 or 20 days elapse before the result of the analysis
is known. The vendor must have the summons 14 clear days and
is only called upon to give 7 days' notice that he holds a Warranty.
It is apparent that even under the new Act the 28 days limit will
have disastrous effect in prosecutions against the Warrantors. One
would like to have seen in cases where the Warranty defence
was to be available the 28 days limit suspended or extended.
In July four milkmen were summoned— two for abstracting
one-fourth and one-fifth respectively of the orginal cream from the
milk, and two for adding n per cent, and 12 per cent, of water
respectively. In the cases of abstracting the cream, the Bench
convicted, inflicting a fine of twenty shillings and costs in both
cases ; but in the two cases of the added water the Bench dismissed
the summonses, considering the offence too trivial to convict.
Against this extraordinary decision an appeal to the Superior Court
was made. The cases were heard at the Queen's Bench Division,
and argued before Mr. Justice Bucknill and Mr. Justice Channel,
who decided that the magistrates should have convicted and sent
the cases back with an order to convict. This result is most
satisfactory, as it establishes the fact that the Analyst's Certificate is
bona-fide evidence. It is gratifying to note that in all three
appeal cases we were successful.