The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-07-22
HEALTH OFFICIALS
SUED FOR $4,000
Dsirynan Day, Rochester, BIames
Dr.. Kiefer and Price for Loss
Of Contract.

Attorneys Clark. Lockwood, Bry-
.1t q Klein, acting for ]. G. Day,
Rochester. Mich. dairyman, began
suit IN the Wayne circuit court,
friday afternoon. against Dr. Guy l.
kiefer, Detroit health ofiicer. and DR..
VIM. II. Price. milk inspector for the
board Of health, for $4,000 damages.
- result OF the board OF health's
campaign Tor puref milk.
Nr. Day, who 10 credited with hay-
ms one OF the finest dairies In Wayne
county, sets forth. through his at
tornsys. that he lost contract for
Furnishing the Towar Creamery Co..
with TOO quarts Of milk a day. In
consequence Of the work OF the de-
fendants.
There was misunderstanding OF
some sort between Mr.. Day and the
board OF health. over the inspection
OF the plaintiffs dairy" said one OF
the attorneys for Mr.. Day, with the
result that the health board notified
the Towar Co. that II would no long
Or be able 70 get milk from Mr.. Day.
The notice was served on the Towar
90. on . Thursday, towards the end
Of June, or whereabouts, but II was
withdrawn q few days later, the
health oflciala explaining that there
had been a technical error OF some
sort. In the meantime, however. the
Towar Co. made contract with an
other dealer for the quantity OF milk
which Mr.. Day had been supplying
and Mr.. Day has since been minus
that patronage"
Health Oflcer Kiefer is not losing
any sleep over the action. He feels
that the board OF health acted with
IN It's rights In dealing with Mr.. Day
a. Il did: in fact, he says that the
board Of health went the limit in re-
gard to decency toward him
mr. Day" said DR.. Kiefer to The
Times, Saturday morning. refused to
allow the boards inspectors or myself
to inspect his dairy. After he, through
his representatives at the dairy pre-
vented the boards inspectors from
making an inspection OF his premises,
1 went there myself, but met with the
same treatment The men at the
dairy said they were sorry, but that
Mr.. Day had said that they were not
10 allow the inspection of the place.
Afterwards Mr.. Day wrote me sar-
castle letter. which turned over to
Mr.. Hally. corporation counsel.
In view OF the position taken by
Mr.. Day. we then notified him that his
milk would be excluded from the city,
the action we take in all such cases.
We also notified the Towar Co. OF our
proceeding against Mr.. Day. In re-
Spouse to this notice. Mr.. Day inform
ed me that he was willing that his
dairy should be inspected. and on re-
ceipt OF this information we withdrew
the notice.
e feel that Mr.. Day is alone
responsible for any loss that he
suffered We simply wanted to in
spect his dairy along with others, for
the purpose OF finding out the con-
ditions OF mis- premises and the quality
OF his milk, so that the public might
be protected. should there have been
anything wrong with his supply. II
his milk was all right, he had no rea-
son to fear an inspection
II have heard II said that Mr.. Day
was telling around town that we ex-
y cluded his milk 80 that a friend OF
Ours might get the Tewaf contract
from him. That insinuation IL really
+ too silly and absurd to dignity with a
denial. ! might say. however. that
there Il absolutely no ground for such
an intimation, and wen 80 demon
strate Il he puts the charge In his dec
farAtiOn. a u
Or. Kiefer and DR.. Price win file an
appearance In the case within the Is
days allowed for the purpose.