254 THE ANALYST. THE BROMSGROVE MILK CASE. WITH reference to this case, a report of which appeared in our March number, page 227, we reprint from the Worcesterdiive Chronicle the following report of Dr. Swete, presented to the Worcestershire Quarter Sessions :- I have the honour to report to you that, during the last quarter, I have received for analysis 27 samples of food. Ten of these were milk, of which 2 were adulterated with water seriously, 1 to a very slight degree, and 7 were genuine ; 4 of butter, which were genuine-1 sample had the low melting point and general appearance of butterine, but a complete analysis proved it to be genuine, 12 of bread, 9 genuine and 3 contained alum in small quantities, but insufficient to suppose a wilful adulteration.I have d s o received 6 samples of wiiter, 4 were polluted and 1 wholesome, Some seeds and the body of a pigeon audTHE ANALYST.255 the crop of a bird were brouqht to me by thepolice for analysis, from Upton-on-Severn, I found that the birds had been poisoned by strychnine, and that the seeds were wheat, boiled with the seeds of strychnos nux vomica, containing thr deadly poison of strychnine and mucine in large quantity.The person who exposed these seeds was fined for the offence. I append to my report the tahulated statement required by the Local Government Board. In my last report I stated that I had received 6 samples of milk from Bromsgrove, of which 6 were adulterated and 1 (marked W) of excellent quality. I regret to state that in the case of Y. B.(Thomae Fisher) I was in error, and in justice to him and to myself think it right to lay before you the details of the case, and the way in which 60 lamentable an error occurred, The samples were sent to me by letter, and I need not say that it could make no difference to me whether the analysis showed them to be good or bad. If there was any difference it would be in favour of my reporting them as good, as I was informed in that case one vendor wished me to make a second analysis and give him a report for publication; so that I should have received another fee.The milks were all analysed at the same time, with the same care, and using the same ether, which I specially distilled the samo day for the purpose. Yet W turned out to be good and the rest more or less bad.The care and the ether were clearly not at fault. That part of the analysis which was conducted in platinum vessels of known weight, and the weight of which hardly alters during a year, agreed with the results of the analyst for the defence and the chemists of Somereet House. The error, therefore, was traced to the porcelain dishes of various weights in which the fat was determined.The old plan used to be to use platinum dishes for this purpose, and to measure, not weigh, the milk. Finding this plan gave a disadvantage to the vendors of milk, I adopted that of weighing the milk and using porcelain dishes, and on tracing out the mistake, I found that it clearly arose from my assistant, when weighing the empty dishes, making an error in noting the weights, which of course invalidated all the results.I do not for a moment wish to shelter myself by an error of an assistant, but I can coufidently &ate that the chemical part of the analysis, which I personally performed, was conducted with extreme care, and with the purest chemicals. I was myself anxious that the sample should be sent to Somerset House, as I was fully convinced of the honesty of my analysis.Afterwards, on re-analjsing the milk, I found it to be pure, and that the analysis of the defence was correct. A sample of milk waa also sent me, labelled ‘6 Bromsgrove,” just before these cases were heard at Petty Sessions. This I certified as pure, and I found afterwards it had been taken from the dairy of one of thc magistrates, and was notably sent to me as a test of my process of analysis of milk. After the decision of Somerset House, I received a request that I would declare the milk of a Mr.Whitehair also pure, and that I had made a similar error in his case. I replied, I could not do this, as I did not know which sample belonged to him, not having before heard his name ; that aa his sample was not challenged by the defence, the remainder bad been destroyed, so that I could not re- analyse it, but I advised my explanation should be shown to the Court. I then received a legal notice that if I did not at once pay the costs and expenses of Mr.Fisher, nearly €20, I should be proceeded against in the County Court. I replied that I woulc! pay no compensation on compulsion, as I was ready to defend any suit, and that a~ Somerset House had condemned the analyses of many very eminent public analysts, it would not be right of me to create such a precedent.Finding, however, that Mr. Fisher was a poor man, that he ww fully satis6ed with my explanation, and did not impute any incompetence to me, and that his solicitors expressed their satisfaction at the way in wbich I met the case, I sent him as compensation five guineas, which, with the guinea allowed him by the Magistrates and the certificate of Somerset House in his favour, will, I trust, prevent him from being injured either in pocket or reputation by 80 lamentable an error, which I deeply regret.I have since conducted, and shall continue to conduct, food analyses in duplicate, so that any laboratory error may at once be detected.Sir Richard Harington (deputy chairman) said that notwithstanding the explanation that had been offered by Dr. Swete, this seemed to him to be a matter of very serious importance indeed, because if a mistake of this sort was committed on one occasion, it must necessarily tend to give excuse for controverting the accuracy of the analyst on future occasions. He therefore thought it became the duty of the Court to look with some care into the explanation that had been offered.When the case wss before the Magistrates -[Sir Richard was on the Bench]-Dr. Swete’s analysis was-solids not fat, 11.22 ; fat, 1.76 ; ash, -7. The defendant in answer to that called Dr. Bostock Hill, the public analyst of a neighbouring county, whose analysis was-solids not fat, 9.22; fat, 3.45 ; ash, *69.Upon that the thitd sample, which was kept under the provisions of the statute for that purpose, was sent to Somerset House, and the result of the analysis there was-solids not fat, 9 ; fat, 3.35 ; ash, *74. This was really more favourable to the vendor than his own witness’s analysis was. I t was not in his (the speaker’s) recollection that anything was mentioned as to any part of this matter having been entrusted to an assistant. Dr.Swete was cross- examined on the various steps which he took in the course of the analysis, and though no question was put to him which required a categorical answer, whether he employed an assistant or not, hc did not remember any mention being made that an assistant had anything to do with the matter. Dr.Swete was then confident that his analysis was correct. I t would be observed that there were two errors in Dr. Swete’e analysis as compared with the other two-the solids not fat were about two per cent, more, aa oompared256 THE ANALPST. with the other two analyses, and the fat about the same quantity less, How that was explainable by a mistake in weighing the porcelain dishes only he (the speaker) did not understand.Mr. Curtler said it was extraordinary that the explanation was not forthcoming until after the analysis at Somerset House; this explanation ought to have taken place when the case was before the Magistrates at Bromsgrove. Dr. Smete’s certificate wm taken to be conclusive evidence in cases like that under discussion, but he (Mr.Curtler) wanted to know whether any Magistrate in the county would now convict on his certificate. .He did not think tbat the Court, acting as the trustees of the public, had any right to accept Dr. Swete’s explanation. He thought there should be an inquiry to ascertain whether Dr. Swete was a skilled man or not. Dr. Swete, who desired to give an explanation, said, in reference to the Bromsgrove case, that he took every possible precaution, as he thought, but unfortunately did make the error.He did not keep an assistant, but a friend was staying with him just before Christmas, when the sample of milk came in, end his friend, finding he (Dr. Swete) was very busy, offered to weigh the dishes for him and write the weights down.Dr. Swete explained how the analysis was conducted, and said he could not declare his error to the Court because he bad not then discovered it. When he found out his error he wrote to the analyst engaged by the defendant, and told him how wrong he (Dr. Swete) was, and begged him to show the letter to Sir Richard Harington at the Court. The Chairman asked why Dr. Swete did not make the explanation which he had made to-day before the magistrates at Bromsgrove when the case.was decided. Dr. Swete replied that he was not cited to attend, and he did not consider he had any right to appear there. In reply to Sir R. Harington, he added that he said nothing, when cross-examined, about employing an assistant, because he then hardly knew it himself. It was only when he came to look throcgh the thing, and his books, that he found how the mistake occurred.Then he remembered that a relative wis staying with him and assisted him. If not, the Act of Parliament would be a dead letter. Whether he mistook a 3 for a 6 , or how it was, he could not say. After a consnltation with the magistrates, The Chairman (Earl Dudley) addressing Dr. Swete, said that a more grievous mistake than he had admitted could not have been made, He (the Chairman) thought it quite sufficient for Dr.Swete to have appeared in Court and made the remarks that he had done, and to have been called upon to listen to the observations that had been made. He did not think, at the present moment, that any further action should be taken; what the future might suggest to any magistrate he did not pretend to say-as he was now addressing Dr.Swete he did not think it requisite to do so ; but, at the same time, he should not be performing his duty if he did not say that the position in which Dr. Swete had placed himself-inasmilch as the duty was always an invidious one, and one which must always call down upon him a great deal of hostility-was a very awkward one, by the fact that an error had been committed which he himself had been constrained to allow. Dr. Swete said he would take care that no assistant was employed in future, and as he intended to execute all analyses in duplicate any error would be at once discovered. The Chairman said that if an error had been committed-and a very grievous one, it might be-he did not think that any other course could be pursued than that it should be fully admitted, with an expression of regret and a promise that, as hr as a man could possibly carry out a promise of that sort, it should not be repeated, Any such repetition would be looked upon as a very serious calamity.