Dairyman sold adulterated milk

Hertfordshire Mercury, 9th January 1915

Transcript

Francis Charles Miller (40), described as a dairyman and dealer, of Barwick, Standon, was summoned for selling Gladstone Rushworth, County Inspector under the Food & Drugs Act, new milk which was adulterated with 45 per cent added water, and was not of the nature, substance, or quality demanded by the purchaser, at Ware, on November 24, 1914.  Defendant pleaded not guilty.  The Inspector said that on November 24 he saw the defendant in charge of a milk cart and asked him for a pint of new milk, which he served from a churn in the cart, and witness paid him 11/2d.

He informed the defendant that it was for analysis, and divided it into three parts, one of which he gave to the defendant.  Another portion was taken to Dr Dyer, the public analyst, whose certificate he produced.  Mr Ashwell: ‘You are quite sure you asked for new milk?’.  Witness: ‘Yes’.  Defendant, on oath, stated that he had eight cows, which were in the meadow, as he had nowhere to ‘shed’ them.  He had been ill for two or three weeks, and had not been amongst the cows at all.  As soon as the Inspector informed him of what had happened he went to investigate, and found that five cows had been milked, which ought to be dry.  Whether that was the cause of the milk being as it was, he did not know.

The milk had been to taken to the town just as it was taken from the meadow, and he assured the Bench he had done nothing to it.  The man in charge of the cows had now left him.  A feather could have knocked him down when the inspector informed him of the of the result of the analysis.  In reply to Mr Ashwell, defendant said he had never come across a case where such a result of analysis was caused by the condition of the cows.  Supt Handley said there was one previous conviction for a similar offence.  The Chairman, after consultation with the other Magistrates, said they thought it was a bad case, and there was a large difference between the milk as it ought to be and as it was.  A fine of £2 and 18s. costs was imposed.

This page was added on 14/08/2014.

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this page!

Add a comment about this page

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *