44^ 



Report of the Intelligence Division, [sept 



Health authorities. There are, however, two considerations 

 connected with this question which seem worthy of the attention 

 of those interested in the sale of milk : — 



(1) It is not desirable that the seller of milk of inferior 

 quality should compete on equal terms with the seller of milk 

 of normal quality, and 



(2) Some local authorities make a rule of taking proceedings 

 in every case where a sample of milk is found below the limits, 

 and in any case the difficulty of deciding whether milk has been 

 adulterated or is merely poor in quality is so great that it must 

 frequently happen that sellers of poor milk are prosecuted for 

 adulteration. 



The present position, therefore, is that although the sale 

 of poor milk is not prohibited, the sale of such milk is in practice 

 penalised by the institution of criminal proceedings which, 

 may or may not be successful, and it might be better for the 

 milk seller that the sale of milk falling below a certain standard 

 of quality should be prohibited, provided the prohibition were 

 enforced by some means which did not involve criminal pro- 

 cedure. 



The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Acts require the consent 

 of the Board before criminal proceedings can be taken, and the 

 position of the Board in this connection is explained. It is 

 considered that the Board would not be justified in concurring 

 in a proposal to prosecute in any case in which their consent is 

 required unless there was reason to believe that the offence was 

 wilful or due to gross negligence. 



It is obvious that as a general rule the proper remedy for 

 damages caused by accident or ordinary carelessness is by civil 

 proceedings, and the views expressed by the Departmental 

 Committees who have dealt with this subject, the terms of the 

 Act, and the statements made in the House of Commons at the 

 time the Act was under discussion, would make it impossible 

 for the Board to depart from this position. 



Several inquiries had been undertaken during the year as to 

 alleged offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and 

 some prosecutions have been instituted. One of these related 

 to the sale of cider containing no apple juice. Representations 

 were received by the Board from cider makers and others 

 interested in the cider industry, to the effect that a liquid con- 



