Couns: Me. P. Watkin, Willams pro-
Before Bir. C. H, Haines, H.M. Registrar (Fined $0)
Shanghai, Sept. 27.
After pleading guilty to a charge of selling. milk at 125/3 Wayside Road to. German. Jewish refugees without a Ueence on five occasion: Chenjel Singh, Sikh watchman, told Mr. C. H. Haines, the Registrar, in HM. Police Court yesterday that had committed the offence to augment his wages of $45 a month which he declared were insufMelent owing to the high cost of living. He was fined $20 for not having a licence and an additional $20 for a continu tion of the offence on four different occasions, the fine being reckoned at for each occasion, Defendant said he did not know a Heence was required and had not heard that other members of the local Sikh community had been fined for the same offence. He informed the court that he was obtaining fifteen pounds of milk daily from 320 Chemulpo Road outside the Settlement and peddling it in the Settiement.
He pleaded not guilty to an add tional charge of being in. possession of adulterated milk for the purpose of sale on August 20, at the same address, Mr. P. Watkin Williams prosecuted for the Public Health Department of the Munteipal Coun.
both cases. The second charge was brought under Section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act of 1928. spector G. V. Volehkolt of the Health Depariment related how he followed defendant from a roud in the Eastern district to Wayside. He said he had met defendant on previous occasions when defendant was Fiding a bicycle with bottles of milk mended across the bar. The indian was -upparently delivering mili. the last occasion witness said he took sample of the milk which defendant took to. the Wayside address, and ave it to the Municipal analyst.
Mr. L. H. Barton, tunic told the court that he made sis of the milk and the conten Aicaled the presence of 12.25 per cent. of added water.
Defendant asserted that the wduleration was done without his know Jedge by the Chinese who sold. him the milk, when Mr. Haines pointed lit that he was charged with being possession of adulterated milk, not with being concerned in the adulieration, In fining the defendant $10 on this charge, Mr, Haines pointed out that tunder English Law a fine not exceed= ing twenty pounds could be Imposed for the first offence and one hundred pounds for a subsequent offence, obtorving that the authorities in Eng-Tand regarded the offence in a xenons Tight. He saw no reason why the same view should not be taken local Ty, since addition of water might render the milk unfit for hungary €or sumption,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.