View report page

64
was intended to cover such a period after its arrival as that 1 and is
there any want of "substantial justice" in holding the milk vendor
liable for any damage to the milk which may have arisen through such a
want of ordinary care in guarding the purity of the article purchased
by her? The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, was passed for the
protection of the public; Section 25, the so-called warranty defence,
contains ample protection for the careful retailer; the public has a
right to expect that Courts will construe the section so as to protect
alike the careful retailer and the public, and not so as to allow the
careless and indifferent vendor to escape at the expense of the public. I
look upon the judgment of the Divisional Court as an example of the
latter method of construing the section, leading, not to what the Lord
Chief Justice desired, a "fair application of the Act," but to a most
unsatisfactory application of it.