Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
183 
milk required or used in connection with his dairy, amounting 
to an estimated quantity of sixteen barn gallons daily. The 
agreement contained the following provision : “The Company 
hereby warrant each and every consignment of milk delivered 
under this contract to be pure genuine new milk w T ith all its 
cream according to the conditions of the Food and Drugs Act 
. The Company take great precautions to obtain a supply 
of pure milk with all its cream and to deliver the same in that 
condition to the buyer. It is therefore agreed that no respon- 
sibility is taken by the Company after delivery other than 
under the Food and Drugs Act, and that for all other purposes 
the buyer must satisfy himself at the time of delivery that the 
milk is sweet, sound, pure and contains all its cream, and if 
the milk is accepted by the buyer he shall not be entitled to 
make any claim for compensation, damages or costs upon the 
company afterwards in respect of milk which shall have been 
accepted by him under this contract.*’ The dealer sold certain 
milk in the same state as that in which he purchased it from 
the Dairy Company, and as on analysis it was found to be 
deficient in fat, proceedings were taken against him for selling 
to the prejudice of the purchaser milk wdiich was not of the 
nature, substance and quality demanded. The dealer contended 
that the agreement under which he purchased the milk consti- 
tuted a written warranty within Section 25 of the Sale of Food 
and Drugs Act, 1875, and that he was entitled to the protection 
of that section. The magistrate was of opinion that the 
agreement was so qualified as not to amount to a written 
warranty within Section 25 and he accordingly convicted the 
dealer. On appeal it was held that the conviction was wrong 
as the agreement constituted a written warranty within 
Section 25. 
In Marshall v. Skett (11 L.G.R., 259 ; 108 L.T., 1001) 
proceedings were taken under Section 6 of the Food and 
Drugs Act, 1875, in respect of a consignment of milk from 
a farmer, and it was proved that the miLk sold was deficient 
in fat to the extent of 26 per cent., and therefore contained 
less than the minimum quantity of fat fixed by the Sale 
of Milk Regulations, 1901, viz., 3 per cent, ‘of milk fat. 
Evidence was also given and it was admitted that another 
consignment of the same morning’s milk from the same cows 
showed on analysis 3T per cent, of fat (being in excess of the 
minimum), and the morning’s milk from the same cows seven 
days later showed on analysis a deficiency of 3 per cent. only. 
The Justices were of opinion that although the sample, the 
subject of the summons, was not of the nature, substance and 
quality of the article contracted to be sold, yet the defendant 
had not tampered with the milk, and the milk was as it came 
