John Lamb

Bromsgrove & Droitwich Messenger – Saturday 11 May 1907

INTERESTING MILK CASE, IPSLEY FARMER FINED, John Lamb, farmer, Ipsley, was charged with unlawfully selling, to the prejudice of the purchaser, milk not of the substance and quality  demanded, on April 9th, at Redditch.—Mr- G. W. Hobson prosecuted, and Mr. J. Whiteley defended. —Mr. Hobson said the proceedings were taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, 1875.Formerly there was a difficulty with regard to these cases, because there was no fixed standard to go by. In 1901 regulations were made by the authorities providing that where a sample of milk, not being sold as skimmed milk, contained Iess than three per cent of fat or less than 8.5 per cent of milk solids not fat, it should be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, until the contrary was proved, that the milk was not genuine, by reason of the abstraction of milk fat or the addition of water. The deficiency of fat in this case was extensive-20 per cent, and he asked for a substantial penalty. —Police-sergeant Haines said Police-constable Waddams purchased a pint of milk from the defendant’s son, for which witness provided him with the money. The County Analyst had since certified that the sample was 20 per cent deficient in fat, and contained the following parts; – Fat 2.4 instead of 3, non-fatty solids 8.55, and water 89.05. The certificate further stated that the information was based upon the fact that the sample contained 2.4 per cent of fat, whereas normal milk contained not less than 3 per cent. – In cross-examination witness stated he did not know that the Board of Agriculture had in a circular advised that three per cent was not an absolute standard of fat, and that unless there were special circumstances indicating fraud it was well to ask for an explanation. —Mr. Whiteley, for the defence, said he wished to impress on the Bench the fact that the three per cent standard was not an absolute standard. It was a presumptive standard. If he proved that oils had not been abstracted or water added it did not make this a case of fraud, as it would otherwise appear to be. After making enquires the Board of Agriculture fixed the presumptive standard at 3 per cent. Then for the guidance of the local authorities they sent out a circular, in the course of which it was pointed out that occasionally, and especially at certain seasons of the year, there might be cases in which a sample of genuine milk might fall below this standard. To meet cases of this description it was suggested that in the absence of any special circumstances indicating fraud the local authority should call the attention of the farmer or dealer to the analyst’s report, and ask for an explanation, and if the explanation was satisfactory they might refrain from instituting any proceedings or withdraw any summons. – Mr. Hobson said the local authority a Worcester did not consider that where there was a deficiency of 20 per cent of fat it was necessary to ask for an explanation. They considered it was a case for prosecution. – Mr. Whiteley replied that the local authority at Worcester did not carry the smallest weight with the Bench in that case. They were not there to give evidence. -Mr. Hobson said he objected to the attack on the authority,-Mr. Whiteley retorted he objected to being interrupted in the middle of his speech.-Mr. Hobson: I did not interrupt you. The case has to be decided by the Bench and not by the local authority.-Mr. Whiteley said in the absence of any circumstances suggesting fraud a farmer should be asked for an explanation, which had not been done in this case. Mr. Whiteley stated the milk had not been tampered with in any way, and suggested that the sudden spell of cold weather after Easter affected the cows and the quality of the milk, The Chairman said he thought the fact of the cows being turned out to graze would have improved the milk rather than otherwise. -Mr. Whiteley: Not at first. -The Chairman: That is only an opinion of my own. -Mr. Whiteley : There is a tendency at first for the flow of milk to be greater, but not quite so rich. -The Chairman : I do not think that is the general opinion. -Mr. Whiteley said he based his remark on what he had read. He had been studying the question.-Albert Lamb, son of defendant, said he supplied the police officer with the previous night’s milk. After the cows were milked he took the milk, assisted by his brothers, to the cooler. The milk was not touched until next morning, when it was placed in the milk visuals and taken in the cart to Redditch. From beginning to end the milk was not tampered reply to the Bench, witness said he washed out the cans, but left no water in them.- Ernest Lamb corroborated. In reply to Mr. Hobson, he said the cows were well-fed and regularly milked. Witness was asked to what he attributed the tremendous shrinkage of cream, and replied the cows were turned out in the warm weather at Easter. There was a sudden spell of cold weather which affected them. Besides grass the cows were fed on mangolds, a little flour, hay, but no grains. – Arthur Lamb, another son, and John Lamb, the defendant, gave similar evidence. – Mr. Hobson said it was not much comfort to the purchasers of milk who had babies to be told that the quality of milk suffered when there was an easterly wind. The wind blew from the east nine months out of the year in this country. He asked defendant if he did not agree that 20 per cent below .3 of fat was an exceptionally poor quality of milk, – Witness : Decidedly, but I cannot account for it. -The Bench had a consultation in private, after which the Chairman said they considered the case clearly proved. Defendant would be fined £1 and 13s. 6d. costs. The Bench certified for the solicitor’s fee (£1 1s.). They also allowed time for payment of the fine and expenses, on the application of Mr. Whiteley, in order that defendant might have an opportunity of considering whether it was not a proper case for an appeal.