I 



Contemporary Agricultural Law. 193 



under Section U of the Sale oE Goods Act, l(Si<3, to treat as a 

 l)reacli of warranty and recover damages accordingly. 



Tliere have been several cases relating to the sale of milk. In 

 Hell/well V. Haskins (0 L.G.R., lOllO ; 75 J.P., 435) an inspector 

 watched the respondent, a vendor of milk, whilst in the street 

 outside a customer's house pour milk into her jug from his can 

 and receive payment for it. He saw the purchaser carry the 

 jug indoors and shut tlie door. He knocked, and in about 

 three minutes from the time when the milk was taken by the 

 purchaser obtained it from her in the same condition as that in 

 which she had taken it from the milk vendor. Upon analysis 

 the sample showed 30 per cent, of added matter. The Court 

 (Lonl Alverstone, C.J., dissenting) held that the vendor could 

 not be convicted under Section 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs 

 Amendment Act, 1879, as the sample had not been obtained 

 " in course of delivery " as required by that section. In 

 Lamont v. Rodger (1911, S.C. (J.), 24) a farmer was accused of 

 selling milk which was not genuine under the Sale of Milk 

 Regulations, 1901, which provide that where a sample contains 

 less than 3 per cent, of milk fat it shall be presumed " until 

 the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of 

 the abstraction therefrom of milk fat, or the addition thereto of 

 water." He gave evidence himself, and called his mother and 

 his farm servant as witnesses, who all denied that the milk had 

 been tampered with. It was proved that he had no separator. 

 It was held that the onus of proof imposed by the Regulations 

 on a person accused of selling milk which was not genuine had 

 l)een sufficiently discharged by the evidence he had offered, and 

 that it was not necessary for him to have the corroboration of a 

 neutral witness or witnesses. In Dairy Supply Co. v. Houghton 

 (28 Times L.R., 91) the appellants, wholesale dealers in milk, who 

 purchased their milk from farmers in the country, were charged 

 with having given to a purchaser from them a false warranty 

 in writing as to milk in respect of which the Public Analyst 

 had reported that it was deficient in milk fat. The milk in 

 •luestion was received from a farmer with whom the appellants 

 had dealt for three years, and during that time nothing had 

 occun-ed to lead them to suppose the milk was not of the proper 

 standard. The farmer had given the appellants a warranty with 

 the milk. It was held on appeal from a conviction that the 

 appellants had proved that when they gave the warranty they 

 had reason to believe that the statements contained therein 

 were true within Section 20 (6) of the Sale of Food and Drugs 

 Act, 1899, notwithstanding that they had not tested any part of 

 that particular consignment. The conviction w^as therefore 

 quashed. In .Jenkins v. Thomas (9 L.G.R., 321 ; 104 L.T., 74) 

 the Haverfordwest Town Council, in pursuance of the Markets 



VOL. 72. 



