Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

8 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

Colwyn Bay Milk Case.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

Colwyn Bay Milk Case. WAS WATER ADDED? IMPORTANT POINT TO BE DECIDED. Before Mr. Kneeshaw (Chairman) and other Justices, at the Colwyn Bay Police Court, on Saturday, a milk-dealer named William Corlett, of Park Dairy, Sea View Crescent, was sum- moned for selling milk not of the nature and quality demanded. Mr. E. A. Crabbe was for the prosecution, and Mr. T. H. Morgan defended. THE PROSECUTION. It was stated that at half-past seven on the morning of September 12th Supt. Hugh Jones (who is the Inspector under the Food and Drugs Act of 1876) and Sergeant Rees visited the dairy and purchased a pint of milk from the milk- seller, Vaughan, employed by the defendant. The usual formalitifcs required were complied with, the milk being divided in three parts, &c., one of which was sent to the County Analyst in Chester. The result of the analysis showed that there must be 6.6 per cent. of added wiater in the milk supplied. Mr. Morgan: Do you make that statement seriously ? Mr. Crabbe: I do. Mr. Morgan It us merely presumption. Mr. Crabbe: It is presumed, I admit,. that there is 6.6 per cent. of added water. Proceeding, MT. Crabbe said the defendant was served with a summons on October 8th. On that occasion the defendant asked Sergeant Rees if there was no. one else being summoned. He added that he could bring a man to say the milk was 'delivered straight from the cow to the churn, and had not been taken inside the shop. On the 14th October, Corletit intimated by letter that it was his intention to produce a warranty for the milk. "Of course," added the advocate, "a warranty which complied with the require- ments of the Act would, had it been supplied, have put another complexion on the case. Whether there was a warranty or not, there would be still proceedings. But in order to be available as, a defence the warranty must be put in within seven diayisi and notice sent to the person who. had given it. There was no copy of the warranty sent to the Superintlerud,ellt in this, case." The defendant wrote through his solicitor on November i-st, sending a copy of the warranty, which was simply a label from Mr. Morris Jones, Ty Newydd, Llanelian, on, which was marked "15 gallons in 2 churns, pure new milk. Signed, Morris Jones, September 12th." The defendant had not complied with the requirements of the Act. If he did have the warranty at the time the summons was served he could easily have handed it with the notice to Sergeant Rees, but he did nothing of the .sort. The analysis was a very bad one, and a conviction should be the result of such a bad case. SUPT. JONES GIVES EVIDENCE. Supt. Jones stated that when he called the milk-seller Vaughan was on the point of starting out with two cans. He asked for "a pint of new milk. By Mr. J. Watkin Lumley: I was m plain clothes not in uniform. By Mr. T. H. Morgan: There was nothing said about the warranty. The defendant said, "You are a bit late. You ought to come a month sooner, when the milk was scarce, and we put water in it." (Laughter.) I think, though, he meant that in a joculiar way. (Re. newed laughter.) I don't for a moment suppose that it was intended to be taken seriously as an admission. "Mr. Morgan: I suggest he was chatting you because you were going round? The Superintendent: I have given you just what he said. Coming to the summons, it was iserve-d on the very last day it could have been servel? Oh, no, the following day would have done. The defendant wrote you saying he would in defence produce a warranty which he held from the farmer who supplied the milk to him Yes. When you received that letter you saw that it did not gomply with the Act?—Yes. I knew it was not complete. -< 4: Well why didn't you try to assist, the defend- ant by'telling him that?—It was not my place °You did not say anything at all until you re- ceived my letter?—That is so. Do yon know anything about the goodness badneis of milk.-I rely entirely upon the ana- lyst's certificates.. My friend has said there was a seiious defi- ciency If I may put it to vou, even the ana- lyst'/ oresumipition only amount to thjs. that there would be 1% pints of water added to 26 quarts of milk?—I would rather have it pure 'mBylfMr.(IStey '} Was theiteany reason why this summons was delayed until the last day?- No it is some time before we get the certifi- cate from the analyst. Was there any reason ?-None that I know of we were within the time. 0 T Was there any reason in your mind. AO. A "FLIMSY" CASE. Mr. Morgan ,said he felti that this was the most flimsy case ever brought into the Court. It was taking advantage of the defendant, who. was a man ignorant of the law in such matters, mere, ly because he did not send in a sufficient and proper notice within seven days, the stipulated time. He gave what he believed to be sufficient notice but it was admitted that he failed to supply a copy of the label within, the required time from the man who sold him the milk. The Chairman I think it is clearly proved that the milk came from the defendant. Mr. Morgan: We shall give evidence. I say I think it is rather strange that advantage should be ,taken of the fact that the defendant is more or less ignorant of the law in matters of this kind, by trying to shuit out the fact that there was a warranty in. the case. If you take the analysis it only sihows that presumably 176 pints of water were added to 26 quarts of milk, and of course even that is only a presumption. It is perfectly well-known that there are facts which account for poorness in milk. If you take the evidence which was given before the Royal Com- mission some years ago. you will see that the quality of milk lis influenced by questions of pas. ture breel of cattle and -Other things, and that is quite passible for milk isold direct from the cow to be lower than the standard. This man sold the milk under the bona-fide belief that it was quite pure, and it was sold to him under this warranty. Such being the case, I cannot ,think that you will convict him. It would be very hard indeed for the defendant, through no fault of his own, should be convicted. That would mean that in your opinion he has added water to the milk. The report says there was ,a deficiency in the non-fatty solids. Analysts differ. They cannot say that walter has been added. If I can show you that the defendant sold the milk as he -received it, I shall ask you

Advertising

_.......-.....--.--_.. Llandudno…

Abergele TemperanceI Campaign.

Advertising

Advertising

Colwyn Bay Milk Case.

Abergele TemperanceI Campaign.