Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x8704 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

A DAIRYMAN'S PREMISES.
SIX CHARGES PREFERRED.
"UDDERS IN THE MUD."
AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.
At the City Court yesterday, Bever
ley John -Liddelow was proceeded
against upon six charges of having com
mitted breaches of the by-laws of the
.Central Board of. Health, in thatihe,
being a cowlkeeper: (1)) Neglected to
cause the milk drawp from seven cows
on his premises to be forthwith taken
to the milk-room and there run through
a suitable strainer and cooler: (2)
neglected to cause every stock yard used
by him to be well.drained; (3) neglect
ed to cause the stock yard of the dairy
to be kept in a cleanly condition: (4)
neglected to cause the internal wall sur
face of the detached room for storing
utensils used.by him for containing milk
when such utensils were not in actual
use in the distribution of milk, to be
covered with hard, smooth, and imper
vious, material to a height-of at least.
Oft. from the fibor; (5) neglected to
have the floor of the cowshed in .his oc
cupation made absolutely watertight
with an even, surface and solid founda
tion; (6)) neglected to take 'all reason
able and proper precautions in, and in
connection with, the storage of mnilk to
prevent the .exposure of the milk to
any infection or contamination. .
Mr. G. T. Wood, of the Crown Law
Department, prosecuted on behalf of
the health authorities, and Mr. G.
Parker defended.
In opening the case for the prosecu
tion, Mr. Wood remarked that it was
one of the most disgraceful, in connec
.ion with dairying, that had .ever come
before a Court in the State.' The De
partment had been put to a great deal
of trouble and annoyance by the de
fendant.
Thomas A. James said he was an in
spector of the' Central Board of Health."
Hi? knew the defendant's premises at
Kenwick Park, Cannington,. and first
inspected them in February last. 'The
.milking herd varied from 45 to 29. At
the first' inspection he found that the
feed passages in the cow-shed were
paved with wood. The internal walls
of the milk-room were not lined with
an impervious material, being made of
weatherboard. The stock yard was in
a very dirty state, and the drainage
was bad. The copper for leatini the
water emitted volumes of ,smroke which
were allowed to go into the cow-shed.
Several inspections were made. and
during a visit on September 18,. in a
room adjoining the milk-shed, he found
quantity of horse manure, rotten
'bags and 'ones. The milk-room dodr
was fastened back, open. The lining
of the walls was not complete, and the
cooler was connected with the water
asr. Roe: "Is that for watering the
'milk or cooling it?
Witness: For cioling purposes. .
Continuing, witness said, that on the
floor of the milk-room was a nool of
dirty water. Smoke poured into the
room from a copper outside. The sur
roundings of the' milking-shed were of
fensive. A mass of.dirty water, with
a thick green scum, was on one side,
and the stock yard was a bog,. through
which when the cattle were driven
through they sank knee-deep in the
mire. When they were bailed tin,
thecy brought with them this filth which
they flicked into the milk, on the milk
er his clothes, and the side of the
bails. As the cattle walked throuah
it, their 'teats and udders trailed
through the muck. The milkers were
not careful in cleansing the teats and
their hands, and' several cows were
milked by one man without washin- his
hands at all.' Cleansing was only
spasmodically done. Although there
was, a niotice on the walls, urohibiting
smoking in the milking-shied, the an
fendant smoked a cigarette there him
self. When witness returned at a
later date, with the chief inspector, the
defendant was eerivd with the sum
mons. During some talk about what
had and had not been done to the
dairy, the defbndant's younger brother.
who attributed their action to suite,
looked at him and said: "You need not
look' at me, I am a match for vou."
By that remark, 'witness thought that
thei young man contemplated personal
violence.
To Mr. Parker: He never personally
wrote to the defendanrt tellin~ him what
had to be done, because it,was only re
cently that they had to do so. In re
foreneo to the milk in the drums. the
defendant had conimitted a breach of
the by-laws. beceuse lie allowed the
milk to stand in the cov:-shed for from
fifteen to twenty minutes, instead of
taking it away immediately to the milk
room. The stock yard was im a had
state. nd the defendant should have
paved that portion of the yard over
which the cattle had to pass to get to
the cew shed. so as to minimlse the
quantitv of filth taken into the slhed.
Tho weather lhad been rainy and tihe
clay was soft with an admixture of
dung..
F. O. Loekwood. chief insnector of
the Central Board of Health, said'that
he visite:h the defendant's dairy in,
hot30, just after hle had taken it over
from thie previouis owner. At that
tihue the Iilc. was in aII dirty and nc
elected coidition, and on January 26.
in company with the local insnector, lie;
visite:l the dairy again, and orderd
several matters to be altered. The
inspector save evidenoe of the state of
the premises, corroborating that of In
spector James. In regard to t he inci
dent with the defendant's brother. on
the occasion of their last. visit, they
were subjected to a fire of insults byl
the defs ndant and his hrother. who
followed Ithem about for half an hour.
preventing them from doing any work.
IThe insults ciulminatled in what witness
deemed a direct challenge on the part
of defendant's brother to Iusneet or
J.mes to fight. He was gladl that the
inr;pector followed' his tactics, and re-c
tained control of his feelin's.
This closed the case for the prosecu
tion.
The defendant said lie lived at Can
nington. In December last he took
over the promises from" the nrevious
owner, but only went out there in J-nu
ary. In February hlie s the inspec
tor on two or three occasions. A
complaint about the milk-room not be
ine lined was made. but nothing was
:;aid about the yard, which was coin
posed of very sticky clay. At one of I
tie visits the inspector of the I.<x:nl
Board of IHalth at Canningt-on said
that lie could not see what norm io l
smoke could do. His practice was to
milk thirteen cows. nut the milk into ai
drum. send it through the cooler. sltr:in
itl and place in a clean drum readS t o
he sent 'away. He never stored mnilk.
boeauie he sent it all away twith thh
exept min if that whih i wams iwquir:d i
for tihe il moui-oll ris) 'arlv y in tl'.
inwrlniiug snd ,arly iii t,. eVeniul . It.
would Ih inlposxsihbl to dr:;:i: the 'tntokI
v;ird, for wherever the cows went the
soft clyv would "bcr." and in the iad-
doukt there were places where the c-wss
wouldhi sinkl; d(ouni to their S:toania!.
ilI, inte:d.ld to remedy this Imamtter t xti
huildine now prjmii-- nim -n andm rise.
l-he was informed i v thIe previous owlmer
of the dairy that the premises had been
passed by the health inspectors. but he
had no idea that the stock yard would
be as .bad as it had. turned out to
*be
To Mr. Wood:. I received nbtices tel
ling. me what was required to be done,
and everything was done with two ex
ceptions. - +
cthe inspector to the Canning
Board of Health was then called.
Mr. Roe: This seems to be a case of
a divided camp.
Mit. Wood: The -Local Board giving
evidence against the Central KBoard. .
Mr. Lockwood: A circumstance
which, I am sorry to asy, is alfltbo fr
qui. Roe: Yes, I am very sorry to see
it.
Edmund Broclkman, health inspector
to the Canning Local Board of Health,
said that he knew the premises in
nquestion. Ho was with Inspector
James when the dairy was inspected.
James seemed to be anxious only about
the lime-washing, about which notice
was given. Witness asked him to give
notice .about the. other things he re
'quired done so that he could see that
the works were carried out. What was
called -the stock yard was simply a
small enclosure about the cow-shed,
through which the cattle had to be
driven to be. milked. In the winter
theenclosure was very boggy. but when
he saw it oh the previous day the
cows could, almost walk over the
ground without bogging. They could
certainly make a rough road to the
inilk-shed. but - it would be expensive.
He thought that the defendant's dairy
was the third best kept ph the Canning,
and aeas'as well kept as it could boe.n
der .the circumstances.' He agreed
with the evidence 'of the prosccution
that the position of the dairy was a
very had one, and the defendant him
self had come to that conclusion, and
was going to shift' it. ' ,
Mr. Parker: As a matter of fact. are
the by-laws, strictly adhered to by any
dairymen~- !
Mr. Roo: In the Canning?
Witness: Well. I think there is one
firm which does very 'nearly strictly
adhere to the by-laws, and then they
were always in trouble with the' Central
Board of Health. The inspectors
themselves don't strictly adhere to the
by-lairs.
Mr. Wood: As inspector' fr the
Local Board of Health, do you think it
is a fair thing to ,have the cows .oing
to their milking, trailing their udders
through .the :mudP-I''think it is very
oh.ie?tioisable. "
And .yet you say that this dairy is
well kept ?-I say it is about, the third
best in the Canning, and' it is- as well
kept as it could be under the cirpum
stances.
Aftbr further evidence and counsels'
iddresses, Mr. Roe reserved, his de
cision until Monday morning.
$