Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 06 June 1902
Alleged Milk Adulteration at Swinton.
Heated Argument.
Case Adjourned
On Monday at the Rotherham West Riding Court, an important case under the Food and Drugs Act came up for hearing. The prosecutors were the Went Riding County Council, for whom Mr. L. Parry, solicitor, of Wakefield, appeared; whilst Mr. Muir Wilson of Shefield, was present on behalf of the defendant, Daniel W. Bingley of Swinton.
Mr. Joseph Wilson, inspector, said that a summons was taken out under section 56 of the Sale of Food and Drags Act of 1875 and defendant was charged with selling to the purchaser that which was not of the quality and substance required by the Act.
Mr. Parry, solicitor, stated that the last witness purchased a quantity of new milk from the defendant, divided it into three parts, one of which he forwarded to the County analyst, and which was found to contain six parts of added water. He had received from the solicitor for the defence a copy of an agreement, which he declared was a warranty. The defence intended to rely upon this for their defence, but it would be for them to prove it.
He called Inspector Wilson who deposed that on the 17th of April, he asked defendant for a pint of new milk, for which he paid twopence. He told him that he was an inspector under the Food and Drugs Act. He divided the milk into three parts, one of which he gave to Bingley and the third sample be sent to the public analyst. The milk should contain 8.50 parts of non-fatty solids at least, whereas this of defendants only contained 8.02 parts. If it contained less than 8.50 parts, it was generally understood that there was adulteration.
The Bench: There is a great difference as to what you feed the cows with
Through an accident to his father, the defendant was not present.
For the defence Mr. Muir Willem said his client was a respectable gentleman, with a large round. He was careful to have a written agreement from the person who supplied the milk to him. Viz. Mr. F. Smith of Swinton, who agreed to supply the defendant with milk daily from the Manor Farm, Swinton. Mr. Smith would tell that the quality of the milk varied considerably according to the time of the year and the character and quality of the food given to the animals.
Mr. F. Smith of Swinton, stated that the milk defendant got was supplied in three cans, and his son and he carried in straight from the byre into the cans. He admitted that the milk was of poor quality jut then. He had the attention of his wife to the fact, saying it was owing to giving the cows mangolds to eat. It was at the latter end of the season; had it been a fortnight later, he was certain that the milk would have been right. If an analysis was taken the latter end of October or November, he was certain the milk would be poorer than at present. They had had samples taken many times, but this was the first complaint. The feeding consisted of mangolds, cake, and seed hay, and he admitted that the milk looked to be of poor quality.
Mr. Parry: How could you see that it was of inferior quality ?
Witnees : By the quality of the cream.
Mr. Parry: But it is the non-fatty part of the milk that is deficient.
Witness : Well, it would be the same. He had never added water to the milk of any of his cows of which he had 14. The agreement was made in 1893 and had been in force until the present time. The defendant paid ninepence per gallon now, although he paid 11d during the winter months, but this latter figure was inclusive, of a penny bonus, so that they could keep within the terms of the agreement.
Mr. Perry: Why did he pay you the bonus?
Mr. Wilson: I strongly object
Mr. Parry: I desire to know why this agreement has not been enforced
Witness: Practicably it had been carried out. Why he did not supply the defendant with milk at 11d., or make a fresh agreement, was because he had six months’ notice to give, and as a mutual basis of settlement defendant had agreed to give him a penny bonus, and to stick to the agreement.
Mr. Muir Wilson here read section 26 of the Act, which provides “That if the defendant in any prosecution under this Act prove to the of the justices or court that be had purchased the article in question as the same in nature, substance, and quality with that demanded by the prosecutor and that a written warranty to the effect that he had no reason to believe at the time when be sold it in the same state as when he purchased it, he shall be discharged, but shall be liable to pre the costs incurred by the prosecution, unless he shall have given due notice to him that he will rely upon the above defendant.”
Mr. Parry repudiated Mr. Wilton’s suggestion that they were unjustly pressing the case. They were only doing their duty to the publiic, and they had no desire whatever to act unjustly in the matter. They said that the milk was adulterated.
Mr. Wilson: You cannot reply to the point of law— reply to the facts. I object, there is no point of law, and you have no reply.
Mr. Parry: I’ll take care
Mr. Wilson: Yes, and I will take good care.
Mr. Parry: We say, sir –
Mr. Wilson: I don’t care what you say —reply to the facts as they are.
Mr. Parry: It is a question of law, decidedly.
Mr. Wilson: It is not and if you stand. I will stand also
Mr. Parry: I reiterate, it is a matter of law.
Mr. Wilson: Will you be seated! I will if you will.
Mr. Parry: I will say first —Mr. Wilson: Will you be seated?
Both solicitors were here haranguing the Bench, and their remarks were lost in the general disorder.
Finally they both sat down.
The Bench adjourned and in coming into Court again, said they decided to adjourn the case for a fortnight in order that the defendant might be present to give evidence.