THE ANALYST. 231 LAW REPORTS. NORFOLK BAKING POWDER. At the Cambridge Petty Sessions, George Warren and Henry Warren, grocers, appeared on remand to a summons obtained by the Market Committee, charged with selling the Norfolk baking powder which was, as an article of food, injurious to health: The actual defendants in the case were Messrs. Smith and Co., of Norwich, the manufacturers of the powder, who had given an undertaking to the Cambridge tradesmen to hold them harmless.Mr. Cockerell (instructed by the Town Clerk) appeared on behalf of the market committee ; Mr. Blofeld appeared for the defendants. Mr. Cockerell, having opened the case, called the following witnesses :- Henry Phillips deposed : I am the inspector of provisions under the Corporation. On the 21st of October I purchased four packets of Smith’s baking powder.I asked for Norwich baking powder. They were each wrapped up in the paper produced. I told them it was for analysis, and I left one with them, gave one to Mr. Knights, the analyst, and kept one myself. I emptied the four into one, and divided it into three. By Mr. Blofeld: I act under the instructions of the Town Clerk.I have not heard who has instigated the proceedings. The Town Clerk deposed that he gave the instructions to Phillips, by direction of the market committee not- By Mr. Blofeld: I believe I am the sole originator of the proceedings. Mr. Borwick has had nothing to do with it. James West Knights : I am a Fellow of the Chemical Society, and am Public Analyst for the borough of Cambridge, with other authorities.On the 21st of October, I received from Phillips a parcel of baking powder for analysis. The result of my analysis was that it contained :-Ground rice, 41.5 ; burnt or dried alum, 15.76 ; bicarbonate of soda, with traces of potash silica and moisture, 42.74. Burnt alum is merely crystallised alum dried ; all the water is evaporated from it. A teaspoonful of this baking powder weighs, on an average, 150 grains.If a teaspooiiful were mixed with llb. of flour, according to the direction, it would contain about 23 grains of burnt alum, equal to about 44 grains of ordinary crystallised alum. The ordinary effect of alum is to whiten the bread and give it a good appearance, and makes it light. It forms phosphate, from phosphate of alumina.Phosphate of alumina is insoluble, and destroys all the beneficial effects of bread made from flour. I t makes it indigestible. Alum is a strong astringent, and is very much used in dyeing as a mordant. If phosphates are removed from food, it becomes no longer nutritive. It hardens the gluten of the bread, and renders it indigestible and liable to produce injurious results.There would be from 10 to 12 grains of phosphoric acid in a pound of pure flour. Mixing the spoonful of baking powder in a pound of flour would neutralise about seven grains of phosphoric acid. This is the result of a test. It would destroy it all except a mere trace. There would be a small quantity in the bread, but the main portion would be phosphate. By Mr. Blofeld : Burnt alum is easily distinguished from crystallised alum, unless mixed with any substance containing moisture.I cannot pledge myself that I found burnt alum in this baking powder. It is impossible to say. I t might be crystallised, but there would be twice the quantity. A 4lb. loaf, so mixed, would contain about 118 grains of ordinary crystallised. That is, this proportion would. It is combined with alkalis.No hydrate of alumina exists as such in the powder. By Dr. Cartmell : I cannot say why I put burnt alum. By Professor Liveing : I did not make any determination as to which it was. By Mr. Blofeld: I told Mr. Adams on the previous occasion that I thought it would weigh a less By Mr. Deighton : There is no medical teaspoon that I know. By Mr. Blofeld : Insoluble phosphate of alumina can be discovered in bread.quantity. I have now tried it. I never saw a chemist use a teaspoonful. It hardens the gluten. It acts in its insoluble state. The baking powder is used in baking bread to make the dough rise, by the generation of carbonic acid. This is frequently done by joining acid with carbonate of soda. I t would harden gluten. If corn is cleaned from clay it will contain none.I t is not a constituent of the wheat. I t is injurious to health. I should be very sorry to take five grains of it daily. I should be surprised to find that from 60 to 100 grains were given in 24 hours to children. I have seen some accounts of experiments in America. I don’t agree I t is mixed up dry. Muriatic acid is injurious to health. Hydrate of alumina is injurious.I t is a necessary constituent of clay. I t is generally found in bread.252 THE ANALYST. with Professor Patrick in his conclusions. Alum in bread would be injurious if used in any quantities. I adhere to the opinion that the baking powder contains matter injurious to health. I still adhere to my opinion. Dr. Tidy is not the most eminent analyst. I have only used it for experiment.By Professor Liveing : There was nothing in the powder that would destroy the injurious effect of the alum. By Mr. Cockerel1 : Cream of tartar will serve the same purposes as alum, be harmless, but is more expensive. Hydrate of alumina may be good for medicine but injurious as diet. Matthew Moncrieff Pattison Muir, Prlelector of Chemistry at Caius College, deposed : I have made an analysis of the Norfolk baking powder, and agree generally with the results arrived at by the last witness.I have made several experiments with their powder. If water be added to the powder the alum is decomposed, and in baking bread or buns there is no alum. I t produces hydrate of alumina, carbonic acid gas, sulphate of soda and ammonia, or potash.I tried an experiment on twelve grains of soluble alkaline phosphate, which would be present in one pound of flour. The result was almost the whole of the alumina was converted into insoluble phosphate of alumina, and thus a mere trace of hydrate of alumina was produced. I made a third experiment, mixing phosphate of soda with hydrate of a1umina:with water, and wrtrmed, and a considerable amount of phosphate of alumina was produced.I made another experiment. I treated half a pound of flour free from alum with water, and found the water contained large quantities of phosphoric acid. I then mixed half a pound of the same flour with half a teaspoonful of baking powder, and treated it with water in the same way as before. The water now contained very small quantities of phosphoric acid, in the form of soluble phosphate.The insoluble portion was almost certain phosphate of alumina. I believe from these experiments that the baking powder would decompose the greater part of the soluble phosphate in the flour, converting it into insoluble phosphate of alumina, and probably very small quantities of hydrate of alumina. By Mr. Deighton : My figures agreed with Mr.Knights as nearly as might be ; there was not more than one per cent. difference between us. By Mr. Blofeld: I have not made bread or buns or dumplings with this baking powder. I don’t agree with Dr. Tidy’s report. From want of medical knowledge, I won’t give an opinion as to whether it would be injurious to health. I should say that a large quantity of the powder would destroy the colour of the bread.Dr. Bushell Anningson, Medical Officer of Health for Cambridge, deposed : I have heard the evidence of the last two witnesses, and in my judgment the effect of making bread with the Norfolk baking powder in the proportion of one teaspoonful in a pound of flour would be to deprive this organism of that nutritive agent which it requires, Viz., soluble phosphates.I t is stated on authority that the human system requires 50 grains of phosphoric acid per day. That is expected to be derived from bread. The phosphoric acid aids digestion, and is absorbed. The effect of what Mr. Muir has described is to deprive the bread of an essential article of diet. Phosphoric acid is essential to life. Insoluble phosphate would produce indigestion.By Mr. Blofield : I have no knowledge that baking powders containing alum have been sold for 30 years. My evidence is founded upon the chemical evidence I have heard. I have known atrophy in hospitals, through the bread used, from baking powder. I should say that bread made by baking powder is indigestible. By Dr. Cartmell : From the chemical evidence I have heard, I think this baking powder is injurious to health. Dr.John Buckley Bradbury deposed : I have had ten years’ experience as physician of Addenbrooke’s Hospital. I have heard the evidence of the previous witnesses. In my judgment the effect of making bread with the baking powder produced would be to rob the system of soluble phosphates, which are essential for nutrition.There is scarcely a third of the body when in good health that does not contain soluble phosphates. Phosphate of soda is found in the blood, and the alkalinity of the blood depends on it, and is necessary for the solubility of albumen in the blood. Anything which interferes with the circulation and respiration, probably it would lead to certain diseases of nutrition, such as consumption.Phosphorus is found in the nervous system, and the only origin of it is these phosphates. The effect of insoluble phosphates on gluten would be to harden it and render it indigestible. I should say the constant taking of food made from baking powder would be detrimental to health. By Mr. Blofeld : I know from experience that bread made of it gave indigestion. By Prof.Liveing : I do not think that the introduction of bicarbonate of soda neutralizes the effect By the Mayor: After what I have heard I still think that bread made with this powder would be of soda. injurious to health.THE ANALYST. 258 This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Blofeld then addressed the court for the defendants, and contended, in the first place, that He called the following evidence :- Mr.Francis Sutton, Analytical Chemist and Public Analyst for Norfolk, Great Parmouth, Lowestoft, and Thetford, deposed : I am the author of works on analytical subjects which circulate out of England, I have analysed the powder, and agree substantially with Mr. Knight’s analysis, but not as to its being burnt alum. To mix the powder in the bread would be to mix it with the dry flour, and then to moisten it to the necessary consistency, to convert it into dough, with water.The moisture liberates carbonic acid gas from the mixture of bicarbonate of soda and alum; that gas causes the bread to rise, and the result in my opinion is that sulphate of soda, sulphate of potash, and hydrate of alumina are found. I have had a 21b. loaf of bread made with this baking powder strictly in accordance with the directions, and I have then examined it for the quantity of alumina present, and I found it to be three grains and three-quarters of dry alumina.I have also had a loaf of bread of the same size made with yeast, from the same flour, and the quantity of dry alumina I found there was nearly three-quarters of a grain.That is contained in the flour. All the samples of flour I have ever examined did contain alumina, and I have examined many. Alumina is a white powder, which I produced, which is six grains of dry alumina hydrate. It is an earthy matter, and is in all clays a mixture of alumina and oxygen. In my opinion it is not injurious to health. Dr. Pereira recommends it in large quantities for acidity of the stomach.My experience would support Professor Patrick’s experiments, that it has no effect whatever on the human system. I have had practical experience of its use for Norfolk dumplings in my own family for some years without the slightest prejudicial effect. It makes light bread. I do not agree that it hardens the gluten and makes it indigestible ; I speak from personal experience.Before this case was stirred at Cambridge I never heard any complaint of it. Mr. Muir’s experiment was a laboratory experiment. Mr. Muir first separates the soluble phosphates from the flour by water, and then adds either alum or hydrate of alumina or baking powder to them, and so he gets phosphate of alumina. That I should expect he would, but it does not prove that the addition of the baking powder to dough was the same thing, and I do not believe it does become phosphate of alumina in the case of bread.The phosphate would be perfectly inert and harmless to health. It makes no difference whether it ie phosphate of alumina hydrate. Excess of baking powder would discolour the bread. My opinion is that bicarbonate of soda neutralises muriatic acid and sulphuric acid.Tartaric acid is sometimes used, but not with such good effect as alum. By Mr. Cockerell: Alum is cheaper. I have made laboratory experiments. This baking powder does not harden the gluten. Dr. Michael Beverley, of Norwich, Assistant Surgeon to the Norfolk and Norwich:Hospital, and House surgeon for seven years : Taking the evidence I have heard, I am of opinion that there is nothing in the baking powder, used as directed, injurious for food.I have used this bread myself, and have heard no complaint of it before this Cambridge matter arose. Alumina, is contained in fuller’s earth. Bicarbonate of soda renders alum perfectly inert. I took 20 grains of alumina to see if it had any effect, and it had none whatever, and I am prepared to take the same quantity again.By Mr. Cockerell : I have not taken that quantity day by day. I believe phosphate of alumina is more injurious than hydrate. I agree that alum is a bad thing in bread. Mr. Joseph Becarle Smith said : I am the senior partner of the firm who manufacture this baking powder. I was recently Mayor of Norwich, and am now deputy-mayor. I am a wholesale druggist.The manufacture of this baking powder has been carried on for over twenty years. I have carried it on for the last seven years or longer. We send several tons of it from Norwich every week over a great part of the United Kingdom, and a considerable quantity comes to Cambridge. Recently my trade with Cambridge has very much increased. I have never in my life heard anything about this baking powder being injurious before this matter arose at Cambridge. This concluded the evidence, and the Magistrates retired to consider their decision. After having well considered the case, they returned into court and inflicted a penalty of 40s.and costs. Notice of appeal was given. baking powder was not an article of food, and if it were it was not injurious to health.HEAVY FINES FOR ADULTERATED MILK.-At the Bristol Council House, Charles Payne, of Downend, was summoned by Mark Hookings, of Berkeley Place, and also by James Baker, of Wilson Place, for selling to them forty quarts of milk, which was not milk but a mixed fluid not of the quality demanded. Mr. Wansbrough prosecuted, and explained that the complhante were dairymen in Clifton, who had234 THE ANALYST.entered into an engagement with the defendant to supply them with milk. The milk had been analysed by Mr. Stoddart, and certified by him to be 6 ‘ deficient in all component parts to the extent of 15 per cent. of the usual average.” The article to be supplied to the complainants was “ genuine new milk ” at 10d. and l l d . per gallon. The complainants were called, and Mr. Yeates, Inspector under the Act, gave evidence, stating that some of Mr.Baker’s milk contained 30 per cent. of water. The defendant denied having added water to the milk, and said that he could not be responsible for everything that was done on the farm. The Bench considered the case a bad one and fined Payne altogether $20 and costs, or in default of payment two months’ imprisonment.The wet weather had mnch to do with the poorness of the milk. COSTLY bU~TERATIoN.-At the Nisi Prius Court the case of Hayes D. Payne was heard. Mr. Cole, in stating the plaintiff’s case, said, though simple in its facts and nature, it was a very serious matter indeed to the plaintiff, Mr. Hayes, who was a dairyman and milk retailer, 7, Victoria Street, Clifton.He had carried on business there for forty years, and that he carried on a very extensive trade would be gathered from the fact that he paid upwards of 21,000 a year for milk, and he also sold butter and other goods in which dairymen dealt. The defendant was a farmer, and carried on business at Downend, and the consequences of the breach of contract which plaintiff charged defendant with had been very serious indeed, because the Inspector of the Sanitary Authority stopped one of the plaintiff’s milk boys in the street, took a sample of milk, which he submitted to the County Analyst, and it was found to contain nearly one-fourth of water.The result was that the plaintiff was summoned before the magistrates and fined 21 and costs. The mere fine was, of course, not a matter of much significance to the plaintiff, but the case was pub- lished in every newspaper in Bristol, and was, of course, read by those who were in the habit of dealing with the plaintiff, the result being a most serious injury to his business, and the loss of a great number of his best customers.On the 24th of March, 1878, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to supply him with milk of the best quality, at l l d .per gallon, up to the 29th of September, and after that date he was to pay a shilling per gallon. Prior to the 27th of September several com- plaints were made to plaint8 of the quality of the milk, and he complained to the defendant. Mr. Payne replied that it was no fault of his if it was not pure, and in order to secure its not being tampered with, the defendant supplied a padlock to the canister in which the milk was brought into the city, keeping a key himself and sending a duplicate key to the plaintiff.On the 27th of September the milk was received as usual, and put into the cans for the plaintiff’s boys to carry out, and it was in no way meddled with. On that day, as a boy was delivering milk, he was met by Mr.Yeates, the Inspector, who bought half a pint of milk, telling him that he purchased it for the purpose of analysis. When the boy got home he communicated to the plaintiff what had occurred, but his milk was then all gone, and it was impossible for him to take a sample of the milk. On the 29th of the same month the plaintif€ thought it right to ascertain whether the milk was being supplied in a proper state or not, and though at that time he had not been summoned, he took samples of the milk which came from defendant.I n the presence of his man who brought it he unlocked the canister and poured the milk into the cans, and from them he filled three bottles, giving one to defendant’s man to take back to defendant, another he took to Mr.Stoddart, the City Analyst, and the third bottle he kept. On the 15th November and the 4th of December he took two further samples, and in consequence of its quality on the latter date he declined to take any more from defendant. The result of the analysis of the milk which the plaintiff sent to Mr. Stoddart was that it contained 25 per cent. more water than there ought to have been.Evidence was adduced in support of this statement, when Mr.Bompas addressed the jury for the defendant, and remarked that though the actual money at stake was small, the action was one of considerable importance to the parties concerned. After the evidence which had been given by Mr. Stoddart, he should not contend that the milk which he analysed was pure milk, for it was evident from the result of his examination that the milk which he submitted to analysis was not pure, genuine milk, which the defendant contracted to serve to the plaintiff, and which he would prove was supplied.The defendant was a man keeping a very large dairy, having from 60 to 100 cows, some of them of the Guernsey and Jersey breed, and some of them half-bred, the milk obtained from them differing in richness and in the proportion of cream, but altogether giving fair average milk.The learned counsel detailed the process carried on in the defendant’s dairy, pointing out that the milk obtained from all the cows was mixed and fairly distributed amongst the whole of his customers. He supplied several large institutions, and he should call witnesses from those places to prove that the milk supplied them by the defendant at the time a t which the plaintiff complained was perfectly good and pure.The learned counsel contended that it was not for him to show where the adulteration took place, his only object was to prove to them that it had not been the act of the defendant. He thought that it was not an uncommon thing forTHE ANALYST.235 milk to be adulterated with water, and that it was no slander to say that milkmen eked out their quantity in that manner. He remembered upon one occasion requesting his milkman to supply the milk and the water separately, and he said it could not be done. After hearing evidence in suppart of the defence, the Lord Chief Justice fined the defendant $10 and costs, the latter we are informed exceeding 2,300.PROSECUTIONS BY THE DAIRYMEN’S SOCIETY.-At Clerkenwell Police Court, J. Watson, of the Farmers’ Dairy Company, Holloway, was summoned for selling a pint of milk to Mr. Parish, Inspector of the Metropolitan Dairymen’s Society, adulterated with 18 per cent. of added water. Mr. Rioketts, who appeared on behalf of the Society, said the defendant was in a large way of business, and called Mr.Parish, who said that he purchased a pint of milk of W. Blackwell, servant to the Dairy Company, which was divided in the street into three parts, one being handed to the vendor for his master, and one to Dr. Tidy, the analyst, whose certificate stated that it was adulterated to the extent of 18 per cent. The defendant’s counsel said that his client took every precaution to ensure the purity of the milk, but he had so many different suppliers, and thirty men in his employment as carriers.W. Blackwell, who sold the milk, said that the sample which was given to him by the Inspector was accidentally broken, and he did not let his employers know that a sample had been taken. I t was urged for the defence that in consequence the defendant was quite ignorant of the matter till he received the summons.The Magistrate said he considered it a very bad case ; the defendant being in a large way of business he should fine him $10 and 2s. costs. Mr. Ricketts asked the Magistrate to allow the Society its costs, as it did not get the fine, whereupon his Worship altered his decision, and fined the defendant €5, and €3 5s.costs. At Lambeth Police Court, A. Herring, dairyman, Newington Butts, appeared to a summons taken out by Mr. Parish, for selling adulterated milk. Mr. Ricketts appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Society, and in opening the case stated that the Society prosecuted on public grounds. They were no respecters of persons, and any niilkseller who was suspected of adulter- ation would be visited by their inspector.This was a very bad case, and he intended asking for a full penalty. Mr. Parish proved purchasing a pint of milk at the defendant’s shop. He was served by a young woman in the service of defendant, and told her after the purchase that it was intended to have the milk analysed. She then told him that it was not pure milk. In answer to the complaint, the defendant said on the day in question he could not get the quantity of milk he required, and therefore had to add some water. Mr.Saunders said the defendant then admitted adding water to the extent of some 25 per cent., for that was the adulteration according to the certificate produced before him. It was a most shameful case, and he ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $5, and Sl 3s.costs. ADULTERATION OF FLOUR.-cOlOnel Shortt, the Inspector for North Derbyshire, under the Sale of Food Act, summoned Edmund Hodgkinson, of Baslow, miller, for selling a packet of flour adulterated with alum to the extent of 150 grains to 4 lbs. of flour. Mr. Hughes, of the firm of Young and Go., of Sheffield, appeared for the defendant.The defendant appeared to have allowed the Inspector to choose samples where he liked in the mill, and three were taken and paid for and divided in the usual way for analysis. Two of the samples were pure, but one was said to be adulterated as charged. This sample was marked ‘‘ Flour-fourths,” and it was contended that it was not used for the food of man, and the defendant said that it was taken from an open bag, from which his men fetched it to feed the pigs.He did not know how the alum had got into it. Mr. George Wallwinn, Mr. J. B. Bowman, and Mr. John Evans, millers in the neighbourhood, were called for the defence, and each of them stated that flour- fourths or ‘‘ fine sharps ” were not used for the food of man, neither was it the practice to mix alum with it, as it would spoil the flour.Case dismissed. COUNTRY Mrm.-At Clerkenwell Police Court, on the 23rd ult., Isaac Price, of 7, Great Sutton Street, Clerkenwell, was summoned by Sanitary Inspector Cheshire, Clerkenwell, for selling milk adulterated to the extent of 20 per cent. with added water. Mr. Bolton, solicitor for the parish, said he did not ask for a large penalty.Mr. Ricketts, for the defence, urged that the defendant was a poor man, and ‘‘ sold the milk as country milk.” He had no idea of cheating his customers. The Magistrate ordered the defendant to paya fine of 10s. and 2s. costs. REFUSING TO SEWE AN INSPECTOR. At Southampton, on the 21st ult., a milk vendor named Silas Rawlins, living at Millbrook, who has several times been heavily fined for selling adulterated milk, was fined €10 and costs, by the borough magistrates, for refusing to supply milk to the Inspector for the purposes of analysis, under section 4 of the Amended Food and Drugs Act.The proceedings were instituted by the Corporation, who have obtained a large number of oonviotiona on aimilar informations within the past fortnight.236 THE ANALYST.ANOTHEB REFUSAL TO SERVE.-& Lambeth, Mr. Marsden, the vestry clerk of 8&. Giles’s, Camberwell, appeared in support of several summonses taken out, under the New Adulteration Act, in reference to the supply of milk. Some important questions were raised in the investigation. The Sanitary Xnspector wag refused by the servant of one of the defendants who was serving milk at houses, and, on being asked for a quantity by the officer, declared that he had none to spare, and that all he had wau required for the customers.Mr. Marsden said if such an excuse were allowed the new Act would be defeated. Mr. Chance thought it must be shown that a man had milk to sell, and those customers who had ordered certain quantities were not to go without their breakfast because an inspectorwanted a cer- tain quantity for the purpose of analysis.Mr. Marsden thought that the men should be supplied with a quantity beyond the quantity ordered. The new provision was framed at the instance of the Local Government Board to meet the defect in the former Act as to milk sold in the streets. If the view taken by the magistrate prevailed, the new Act could be easily defeated, and the best way would be to take a special case to the superior Court.Mr. Chance asked why the milk could not be obtained at the shops. Mr. Marsden said because shops now supplied good milk, and milk-and-water was sent out to the cus- tomers, and if the excuse None to spare ” were allowed the new statute would be entirely defeated. Mr. Chance said it was certainly a most important question, but he did not see how, when a certain quantity was ordered, a man was bound to supply an inspector.The case was worthy of consideration, and a special case for the superior Court might be granted. SELLING IMPOVERISHED MILE.-Sarah France, Oldfield Square, Lockwood, was charged with solling milk not of the nature or quality demanded.Mr. Kirk, the sanitary inspector, said the defendant was a milk dealer, and that on the 15th October he saw her son delivering milk, and went and asked him whether he would let him have a pint. He replied I ‘ Yes.” When he had got the milk he told him who he was, and that the mi& was intended for analysis, and asked him if he would retain a portion. He said he would, and he (Mr.Kirk) divided it into three portions-one he retained, one he gave to defendant’s son, and the other he submitted to Mr. Jarmain, the Public Analyst. When defendant’s son supplied him, he (Mr. Kirk) said, ‘I I suppose you sell this as new milk ? ” He replied, “ Yes; just as we get it from Thomas Shepherd, of Holmfirth.” Mr. Jarmain’s certificate was put in, and showed that the milk had been deprived of 25 per cent.of butter fat. He (Mr. Kirk) had since got a sample of milk from the wholesale dealer (Mr. Shepherd) and found it corresponded in quality to that obtained from the defendant, but Mr. Shepherd told him that the milk supplied to defendant was not new, but skimmed. Thomas Shepherd, farmer and milk dealer, Bottoms, Holmfirth, said he was in the habit of supplying the defendant with milk. He supplied her on the 15th Oct.with the usual quality- “ night’s ” and I‘ morning’s,’’ which meant the night’s milk skimmed, mixed with the morning’s new milk. Mr. Kirk: Is the defendant aware of that fact? Witness: For anything I know. Mr. Jarmain was called, and the Bench asked him whether mixing skimmed with new milk would make 26 per cent.difference? Mr. Jarmain said that milk varied very much in the amount of butter fat it contained. The Public Analysts had fixed a certain standard limit, and when milk is below this they think it has been tampered with. They took a very lenient view and allowed a liberal margin, but a deficiency of 25 per cent. of butter fat was much below the limit. Mixing night’s skimmed milk with morning’s new would make at least 25 per cent. difference in the quality.The Bench considered the charge proved and imposed a penalty of 20s. and costs, altogether $2 5s. 6d. William Fearnley, milk dealer and farmer, Honley, appeared to answer two charges of a like nature, and he pleaded guilty to both. Mr. Kirk said the defendant was in the habit of delivering milk from house to house.Whilst so engaged at Taylor Hill on the 15th October, he sent a person to purchase some, and he was refused. He then went himself to defendant and said, ‘ I Won’t you let me have any then ? ” He replied, ‘I Oh, it’s you, is it ? Yes, I’ll let you have some, but it’s old.” He asked the defendant what he had been selling in the house. He replied, “ Old of course.” He (Mr.Kirk) obtained a pint of milk and paid defendant a penny for it, told him it was for analysis and gave him a third part of it. Mr. Jarmain’s certificate of analysis showed it to be deficient of 45 per cent. of butter fat. Mr. Kirk said that although the defendant sold the milk to him as old, there was no doubt he did so to escape the consequences, and that he had been sellmg it as new milk to his customers.Mr. Jarmain said old milk showed 1 per cent, of cream, but the sample in question showed 4 per cent. of cream and 6 per cent. butter fat, whereas old milk never contained more than 1 per cent. The sample submitted was, in his opinion, a mixture of night’s and morning’s milk. New milk showed 8 per cent. of cream, Mr. Kirk said that five minutes after taking the above sample he proceeded to a house, and a person consented to get another sample from the defendant.When he came round this person bought a pint of milk, for which defendant charged 2d. He (Mr. Kirk) S ~ P P ~ forward and paid for it, and told him again it wab for analysis, and mid, 4‘ What kind of milk do yonTHE ANALYST. 287 call this? ” Defendant said, “ Oh, this is different ; this is a mixture of night’s and morning’s,’’ He (Mr.Kirk) then said, “ How is it that you said before you had nothing but one sort?” Defendant eeemed quite ‘‘ flabbergasted,” and could not answer. Mr. Jarmain’s certificate showed that the milk had been impoverished by the removal of 28 per cent. of butter fat. Defendant said he had told his customers time after time what it was, that it was not new milk.He got it from the farmers, and sold it just as he got it, and Mr. Kirk ought to prosecute the farmers, not him. Mr. Kirk said defendant’s object had been to evade the Act, and he asked the Bench to impose a heavy penalty. The Bench said they considered it a very bad case indeed, and imposed a penalty of € 5 and costs in each case, altogether $13 13s.’ or in default, three months’ imprisonment in each case.The defendant, who seemed struck dumb, said, after a long pause, “ I think it’s too much.” SPURIOUS TEA.-“ At the tea sales this week some re-dried teas, which had been submerged in the Thames, found buyers at 33d. to 10d. per lb. for the capers, and lld. to 1s. for the orange pekoes.” Selling tea of this sort, besides giving an erroneous idea of the value of genuine teas bearing the above names, is committing a great wrong on consumers, who, caught by the apparent cheapness of the specious article, are deceived into buying what is mere rubbish and unfit for food. We also briefly allude to some other parcels that were offered on Thursday, the 6th inst., as ‘‘ gunpowder,” but no more resembled that choice description than painted flowers, being nought else but coarse sloe-leaves and dust thickly coated with mineral facing.The day of the month inclines us to think that there was more ‘‘ treason ” than “ gunpowder,” and very little indeed of the latter compound in the teas and those who offered them. The teas were imported as far back as 1872, and sold at 6d. to gad. in bond. Will the proper I ‘ authorities ” interfere and stop this spurious tea from paying duty, and so passing into con- snmption ?-Grocer. A DEEP ARTESIAN WELL.-The sinking of the deep artesian well near Buda Pesth is now com- pleted; the works were commenced as far back as 1868, and during their progress many interesting facts relating to geology and underground temperature have been brought to light. The total depth is 5,200 feet, and the temperature of the water it yields is nearly 165” F. The temperature of the mud brought up by the borer was taken every day, and was found to increase rapidly, in spite of the loss of heat during its ascent, down to a depth of 2,300 to 2,700 feet. Beyond this point the increase was not so marked. At a depth of 3,000 feet the temperature was 177” F., giving an average increase of lo for every 23 feet bored. Water first commenced to well up at a depth of 3,070 feet ; here its temperature was 1100 F., and from this point onward it rapidly increased both in quantity and temperature. Thus, at 3,092 feet, its temperature had already risen to 1500 F., and the yield in twenty-four hours from 9,500 to 44,000 gallons. Finally, when the boring had reached 3,200 feet, at which point it was stopped, the temperature of the water, as it burst from the orifice of the tube, was 165O F., and the volumetric yield 272,000 gallons in the twenty-four hours. This yield was afterwards reduced to 167,200 gallons, in consequence of the bore being lined with wooden tubes, which reduced its diameter. The water obtained disengages carbonic acid in abundance, and also contains nitrogen and a little sulphuretted hydrogen, and 80 grains per gallon of fixed matters, chiefly sulphates and carbonates of potash, soda, lime, and magnesia.-BreweTs’ Guardian.