Cambridge Independent Press 24 Dec 1909: Parsons milk of poor quality
MILK PROSECUTIONSummons Against the Coffee Palace Company.
NO CONVICTION
At the Cambridge Borough Police Court on Friday morning, the Cambridge University and Town Coffee Palace Company, Ltd., of 5, Petty-cury, were charged with selling on November 17th milk which was deficient in milk fat to the extent of 31 per cent.
After hearing the evidence, the magistrates decided not to convict.
The Town Clerk (Mr. J. E. I. Whitehead) prosecuted and Mr. Stuart J. Bevan (instructed by Messrs. Ellison and Sons, Cambridge,) appeared for the defence.
John Dain, Inspector appointed under the Foods and Drugs Act for the Borough of Cambridge, said that on November 17th he went to the Central Temperance Hotel, 33, Market-hill. He purchased two glasses of new milk, and then informed the vendor, Mrs. Susannah Collins, that he had purchased the sample for the purpose of having it analysed by the Public Analyst. The sample was divided into three parts – one he gave to the vendor, another to the Public Analyst, and the third he now produced. Witness subsequently obtained a certificate from the Public Analyst, which stated that the sample of milk was deficient in milk fat to the extent of 31 per cent. The milk was standing on a shelf at the rear of the counter, and about a pint was left when he had taken his sample.
Cross-examined: Witness was quite sure that he asked for new milk, not simply for milk.
Questioned as to the standard required by the Board of Agriculture regulations, witness said that at this time of the year genuine milk seldom fell below that standard, because the majority of the cows about here were due to calve somewhere next Spring. Consequently the quantity of milk at this period was low, and was much richer in fat than just after calving.
In reply to further questions, witness said the climate had great effect on cows, and there were also considerable variations in respect of the breed of cows. He had thoroughly mixed the milk to obtain three representative samples.
Mr. Bevan: The cream of milk sometimes adheres to the side of the vessel? - It did not in this case.
Then you expect to find each of the three samples to show precisely the same deficiency in milk fat? – I would not say precisely, but appreciably the same proportion.
The vendor’s sample was sent to the Analyst of the Borough of Norwich, who says the deficiency of that was 26 per cent., not 31 per cent. That is an appreciable difference? – Yes.
Witness asked for the date when the sample was sent, and was told December 14th.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The Case for the Defence.
Mr Bevan said his first submission was that the Board of Agriculture had laid it down in the clearest possible terms that the object of the Foods and Drugs Act, under which the case was taken, and incidentally of the three per cent. standard, was not to compel farmers or purveyors of milk to sell milk of first-class quality, but to prevent adulteration. All that the standard of 3 per cent. affected was, that it shifted the burden of proof on to defendant’s shoulders, when his milk was found to obtain such a deficiency, and rendered it necessary for him to prove to the court that though undoubtedly the milk was of poor quality, that was not caused in any way by adulteration or extraction. His (Mr. Bevan’s) case was that though the milk was not of the best quality it was none the less milk, because there was no evidence of adulteration or extraction. He would therefore claim from the Bench an acquittal. Mr Bevan drew attention to the discrepancy between the two analysts’ reports, and contended that the two glasses were not mixed so thoroughly as to make one sample identical with the other. The position of the defendant company was not that of a small trader who wanted to make a profit, but they wanted to supply their customers with milk of the best possible standard.
Arthur Stern, foreman to Mr. Parsons, farmer of Trumpington, said that on November 17th there were 17 cows in good condition on the farm. Milking took place in the morning and afternoon. Most of the milk went to Mr. Osborne Smith. The milk was tested sometimes and a little difference was sometimes found between the morning and afternoon milk, the latter being a little better. On November 17th no cream was extracted from the milk or water added.
Mr. Smith, dairyman, of Station-road, deposed to supplying the company with milk for some years, which he obtained in quantities of 50 or 60 gals, from Mr. Parsons, of Trumpington. Witness supplied them that day with morning milk. He took it from Mr. Parsons under a warranty. The hotel was supplied with three gallons on that morning. Nothing was done to the milk after it had been strained. Milk was generally of poor quality in the autumn and spring.
Arthur Green, in the employ of the last witness, said the milk was poured into two enamel cans in the cellar. The milk was not tampered or interfered with in any way.
By the Mayor: Witness did not look into the cans before he poured the milk in. They were supposed to be clean.
Richard Harding, manager of the hotel, said the sample milk was taken from a gallon jug. The milk was kept in the cellar before it came into the bar. No cream was to his knowledge ever extracted. When it was wanted it was fetched from a shop in Rose-crescent.
Similar evidence was given by Mrs. Susannah Collins, who served the inspector with the sample; Emma Philips, bar waitress; and Florence Baker, commercial waitress.
After hearing the case, the Mayor said the magistrates wished him to say that the inspector had acted with propriety, and they did not wish to say a word of criticism as to the institution of those proceedings. Bearing in mind, however, what the Board of Agriculture had said, and so far as they put a construction on the Act of Parliament, the magistrates did not see their way to convict. They wished to add that it was extremely poor milk.
Mr. Bevan said he was told that steps were being taken in regard to the matter.
The Mayor added that the magistrates did not feel that they could on the evidence before them, convict the company of a criminal act.