Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

British Food Journal Volume 19 Issue 11 1917

British Food Journal Volume 19 Issue 11 1917 The unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to prosecutions for impoverished milk has been further exemplified in a series of prosecutions at Oldham. Three farmers were summoned for having sold milk not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser, and the evidence produced showed that the milk in each case was not only deficient as compared with the standard set by the Board of Agriculture, but even more deficient when compared with mixed samples taken at the farm. The Deputy Town Clerk, who conducted the prosecution, pointed out that the case of Wilkinson v. Clark clearly showed that the Inspectors were justified in going to the farm for a second sample, if the second was comparable with the first, and were entitled to rely on the Public Analyst's certificate for both samples. He argued that, in view of the enhanced price of milk, it was very necessary that the purchaser should be adequately protected and that he should obtain what he paid for pure unadulterated milk. The defence in the first case was a denial of the milk having been tampered with, it being sold as it came from the cow. Results of experiments at the Yorkshire College for Agricultural Education were quoted to show that wide variations in the quality of the milk might occur for which the farmer ought not to be held responsible. In the present case it was admitted that one of the cows was not milking satisfactorily, and had a hard udder. The milk from this cow when examined closely, was stated in the defendant's evidence to be more like water. This had only been found out on the morning when the first sample had gone into the churn for sale. The Bench, after consultation, expressed themselves satisfied that the milk had not been tampered with, and dismissed the summons. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png British Food Journal Emerald Publishing

British Food Journal Volume 19 Issue 11 1917

British Food Journal , Volume 19 (11): 18 – Nov 1, 1917
Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/british-food-journal-volume-19-issue-11-1917-6mie4See0S

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
0007-070X
DOI
10.1108/eb011072
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to prosecutions for impoverished milk has been further exemplified in a series of prosecutions at Oldham. Three farmers were summoned for having sold milk not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser, and the evidence produced showed that the milk in each case was not only deficient as compared with the standard set by the Board of Agriculture, but even more deficient when compared with mixed samples taken at the farm. The Deputy Town Clerk, who conducted the prosecution, pointed out that the case of Wilkinson v. Clark clearly showed that the Inspectors were justified in going to the farm for a second sample, if the second was comparable with the first, and were entitled to rely on the Public Analyst's certificate for both samples. He argued that, in view of the enhanced price of milk, it was very necessary that the purchaser should be adequately protected and that he should obtain what he paid for pure unadulterated milk. The defence in the first case was a denial of the milk having been tampered with, it being sold as it came from the cow. Results of experiments at the Yorkshire College for Agricultural Education were quoted to show that wide variations in the quality of the milk might occur for which the farmer ought not to be held responsible. In the present case it was admitted that one of the cows was not milking satisfactorily, and had a hard udder. The milk from this cow when examined closely, was stated in the defendant's evidence to be more like water. This had only been found out on the morning when the first sample had gone into the churn for sale. The Bench, after consultation, expressed themselves satisfied that the milk had not been tampered with, and dismissed the summons.

Journal

British Food Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Nov 1, 1917

There are no references for this article.