THE ANALYST. 147 LAW REPORTS. ADULTERATION OF GIN. At Bow Street, William Birrell, landlord of the Two Brewers, 164, High Holborn, lately appeared to an adjourned summonq before Mr. Vaughan, charging him with having sold gin, which was not of tho nature, substance, and qualityof the article demanded. Mr. J. H. Jones, prosecuted, and Mr. Child, solici tor to the London Licensed Victuallers’ Protection Society, defended.The facts were these :-On the 1 lth of July last John Hoyle went to the appellant’s house, and, seeing him, asked for a bottle of gin for 2s., to which request the appellant answered that he had no bottles, that he had gin at three prices, upon which Hoylo said that he would take the cheapest, which cost 2s. Id. He then received a bottle. He then said that he was an inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and that he had purchased the gin for the purpose of having it analysed.Opening the bottle, he divided the contents into three parts, which he poured into three smaller bottles. Having scaled these, he left one with the appellant and the other two he took away with him, One portion, which was taken to Professor Redwood for analysis, was found to be 42 under proof, or, in other words it consisted of 68 proof spirits and 42 of water.Mr. Thomas Arthur Smith, collecting clerk in the employ of Messrs. Tanqueray, gin distillers, of Vine Street, Bloomsbury, proved that the spirit when it was sent out by the firm was 17 under proof. Water and sugar were always added before the spirit was retailed.Mr. Child submitted that the question became what was the practice of the surrounding neighbourhood. If he went to Bond-street, he would expect to pay more than in Drury-lane. Mr. Vaughan said he did not see that at all--at least, not in a question of gin or gin and water. That was a contention ad abswrduin. He asked witness at what price the gin (1 7 under proof) was sold to the defendant.Witness said the price of the gin was 12s. l l d . a gallon, and there were about six bottles to the gallon; about 2s. for a pint and a-half. Mr. Child said that of course the defendant could not sell it at the same price. He must consider his expenses, the cost of preparing it, and sweetening it for the public taste. Then there was also the style of the place. Mr. Vaughau said he did not take that into consideration.Mr. Child submitted that this was a place of entertainment, open to the public, and they ought to pay fir the lights, the decorations, and the accommodation. I f he went into a very smart shop, he would know that he had to pay for the extra smartness of the place. Mr. Vaughan said he could not take into con- sideration the beauty of the barmaids, the respectability of the barmen, or the cost of the lights and decorations; all those things were for the purpose of enticing a number of flies to the place.There the lights were, and t.he people swarmed round them. The question was, was a quantity of water put in to fraudulently increase the measure of the gin. There were two ways for a publican to apt in. He could mix water to any extent that he liked, and the more water he put in, the better it would be for the public, but then he would have to say, ‘‘ This is reduced 60 per cent.; ” or he must say, “ This is a wonderful gin, not watered at all, and I shall sell it you for 2s. 6d.,” and so put his profit into his pocket that way. Then there was evidence that the gin sold at other places was not watered to the extent that the defendant’s had been.In one instance, the gin was simply 32 under, and in another 31+, but the defendant‘s was 42. Mr. Child submitted that at the price the gin was sold at, this reduction was was not to the prejudice of the purohaser. Mr. Vaughan said not to the prejudice of his stomach, no doubt, but it was to his pocket. The purchaser might sweeten and dilute his own gin to his own taste.Mr. Child had, as usual, fought the Case with great obstinacy, and said for his client everything that could ,be said ; but having carefully con- sidered the case and studied the Act of Parliament, no conclusion except one adverse to the defendant could be come to. Mr. Child submitted, in mitigation of damages, that this new application of the Act of Parliament had come upon licensed victuallers by surprise.The Act formerly specifying certain things that were not to be done had been repealed, and the licensed victuallers had been throwu in the general Act that affected all the pnblic. He should also ask Mr. Vaughan to send the case by appeal to the Qudrter SeAonu, as it was a matter of great iuiportmce to publicans to have the matter decided.Mr.148 THE ANALYST. J’aughan said he did not care whether the case went to the Quarter Sessions or to one of the Superior Courts. He should have thought one of the Superior Courts would have been better, E e would grant a case for the law of the matter to be argued, or the defendant might appeal. Mr. Child decided to appeal, and said he now left the case in the hands of the magistrate.Nr. Vaughan said he entertained no doubt but that the defendant had brought himself entirely within the provisions of the Act of Parliament-that is to say, had sold an article which had been adult- erated with water to an excessive extent for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the measure of what was represented to be gin.The question really was, whether it was necessary to give the spirit a commercial character to reduce it or water it to this extent. He had no doubt but that it was not. The penalty the defendant had made himself liable to was 6;20 ; he mitigated that to $5 and costs. There was a second 8ummons for the same offence against Mrs. Hitchin, of the L6 White Hart,” 191, Drury Lane, but in this case the added water was to the extent of 48 under proof.Mr. Vaughan allowed the case to stand over till after the decision of the appeal, and said that all the publicans had to do was to label the bottle. The appeal in connection with the above case was heard on October 20, before Mr. P. H. Edlin, Q.C., the Assistant-Judge; Mr. Hughes-Hughes, Mr. D. Hill, Mr. C. H. Campbell, Mr.Walshe, Mr. Bickerataffe, Mr. Halswell, and Mr. Ritchie, M.P., Justices. Mr. Besley and Mr. Child were counsel for the appellant; Mr. Poland and Mr. Croome were counsel for the respondent. Mr. Poland, having stated the facts, argued that Hoyle had asked for gin, and obtained not gin, but gin and water, as gin so weak as this was never supplied by the rectifier to the publican.I n this case the water must have been added by the publican, who had no right whatever to dilute his gin with water and then sell the mixture under the name of gin. The distiller prepared the raw spirit, which afterwards, according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, went into the hands of the rectifiers, who made it into the merchantable article called gin. The raw spirit was changed into the merchantable article by reducing it, mixing it with juniper berries and other ingredients, and by distilling it.The gin could be made of any strength the rectifier pleased, but it was generally 17 to 22 per cent. under proof, It would be contended that as there was no standard as to the quality of gin the publican had a right to sell weak gin, but he argued that directly the publican added water to the gin it ceased to be gin and became gin and water.When a purchaser went and asked for a certain article, he expected to get it in the same state as it was received from the manufacturer. If gin was made by the rectifiers as weak as that which had been sold in this case, it would be a different thing; but the publican was not at liberty to add water as he pleased to gin which hc intended for sale.At thc close of Mr. Poland’s opening address, John Hoyle was called to prove the purchase of the bottle of gin fiomthe appellant, and Professor Redwood to prove the analysis. I n cross-examination, the latter stated that he could not tell whether water had or had not been added after distillation, and that there was no fixed standard strength for gin, the rectifier being at liberty to reduce his spirit to any strength he pleased, Thomas Arthur Smith, in Messrs.Tanqueray’s service, gave evidence, and stated that Messrs. Tanqueray supplied the Two Brewers with gin which was 17 under proof. The quality of gin generally supplied to customers was of varying strength, from 17 under proof to 35, and sometimes under that.Gin could be supplied by Messrs. Tanqueray of any strength down to 55 per cent. under proof, and it could be called gin, though 50 under proof. Mr. Besley, for the appellant, alluded to the practice of publicans of sclling fourpenny, fivepenny, and sixpenny gin over the counter, and said that no person who went in and asked for fourpenny gin believed that he was buying gin of the same strength as that which was sold for sixpence. Adulteration, as defined by ‘‘ Richardson’s Dictionary ” was (‘ to debase by a foreign nature, to bring into it something that is not a natural ingredient, to destroy its integrity by that which sullies its purity.’’ Gin, therefore, could not be adulterated with water, which was not alien to it, and without which it could not be rendered fit for consumption.Mr. Hoyle, the purchacer. had not been prejudiced. He had not asked for gin 17 under proof or 22 under, but for the cheapest gin which was sold. H e got it, and where was there any misrepresentation ? By reference to the Spirits Act, 23 and 24 Vict., cap, 114, it was clear that while on the one hand a maximum strength could not be exceeded by distiller, rectifier, dealer, or retailer, the minimum strength was not prescribed, and quantities of not less than two gallons could be sold at any strength, The permit for larger quantities than two gallons, which on the face of it indicated the BCrength was a mere Excise regulation for the collection of duty, and did not carry with it any such consequence as that further dilution after leaving the hands of the compounder altered the character of the article.I t was quite as much gin when 42 degrees under proof as when it was 17 under proof, and unless the purchaser specifically asked for gin of a certain strength no offence could be committed. Evidence mas then given that the particular bottle of gin sold had been bought by Mr. Birrell, from his predecessor ; that he had not in any way tested it, and that, he had sold it in the same state in which he received it, believing that it was a n article of the same nature and quality as two shilling gin which was demanded.This would have been a special defence under the statute if there had been an express written warranty, but the Court intimated an opinion that in the absence of such a warrant7 the defence failed.THE ANAT,YRT.149 ~ Upon the conclusion of the came the Justices retired, and on their retorn the Assistant Judge gave judgment as follows :- ‘‘ We think this conviction should be affirmed. With regard to the questions raised by Mr. Eesley as to the construction of the sixth section of the Act, we have before us the accordant decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the convictions in two cases in which the facts were substantially the same as in the present case.I t appears that it is the practice of rectifiers to add water to the rectified spirit or compound after its manufacture, so as to reduce its alcoholic strength to the degree below proof desired by the purchasers and thus there is no precise limit to the dilution it may undergo before it leaves the rectifier, although practically 35 per cent.below proof is the lowest strength for which there is any demand. But then, there is no room for fraud or deception in this mode of dealing, inasmuch as the manufacturer or rectifier is bound to speeify in the permit which the Excise law requires him to give to the purchaser at the time of the sale the actual strength of the spirit or compound sold, and, of course, the price chraged varies according to the strength.There is no such check, however, upon the seller of a less quantity than two gallons, and if, in order to increase the bulk and measure, water be added and the gin reduced below the strength at which the cominercial article so called is ordinarily sold and which it may be reasonably expected to possess, he must be careful not t o sell the diluted compound for such article to the prejudice of the buyer, as by so doing he may incur the penalty prescribed by this enactment.No doubt, in such a case thc prite charged bas to be considered. The evidence has satisfied us that the appellant was rightly convicted of this offence.There will, therefore be judgment for the respondent with costs.” Some of our Country Magistrates hold a different view on this subject, for : At the County Petty Sessions at Stockton, Joseph Tynan, William Scott, Gilbert Iving, William Walton, and Mary Scott, innkeepers at Sedgefield, were recently charged with selling adulterated gin. Mr, W. R. Fawcett, solicitor to the Stockton and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association, aFpeared for the defence.The case against Tynan was taken first. On the 15th ult., Superintendent Bell, inspector under the Food and Drugs’ Act, purchased a pint of gin at the defendant’s house, and had a poriion of it analysed by the county analyst, Mr. Edger, who certified it to be 43 under proof. Mr. Fawcett submitted that no conviction should follow if he proved that the gin in question was of the strength at which it mas usually sold in the distiict, and quoted an opinion of Mr.Justice Mellor’s in support of the contention. H e then called witness to prove that gin was bought a t 22 under proof, and that 20 per cent. of water was customarily added, this being the innkeepers’ only way of obtaining profit, The Bench dismissed the cwe and the others were withdrawn.We are glad, however, to see that this view of such glaring cases of adulteration is not general in the provinces. At the Bishop Auckland Police Court recently, Hugh Stoker, innkeeper, of Crook, was charged with selling gin which was 49 under proof, and George Knaggs of Spennymoor was charged with selling whisky which was 29 under proof.Nr. Superintendent Henderson was the prosecutor ; and Mr. Maw, was for the defence in both cases. I t appeard that the prosecutor went t~ Stoker’s house, and, after inspecting the measures, asked for a pint of gin such as they supplied to customers. Stoker drew some out of a cask they had just got in, but the superintendent declined to have any. H e pointed to a cask, and Stoker drew him a pint, and told him it was gin and water.I n the charge against Knaggs, it appeared that the innkeepers of Spennymoor, with the exception of the defendant and another, had agreed to raise the price of their spirits, and to sell a better article, in order to keep them within the law. The case against Knaggs was disrniesed; and Stoker was fined €5 and costs, and his license endorsed.How TO ADULTERATE MILx.-At the Belfast Police Court lately, John Stevenson, milk deaIer, residing at Ballymoney Townland, Falls Road, was summoned by TVilliam John Anderson, milk inspector, for selling adulterated butter milk. Mr. Coulter prosecuted, and Mr. Regan appeared for the defendant. I t appeared that the complainant purchased a sample of the defendant’s buttermilk, and forwarded it to Dr.Hodges, borough analyst, who certified that the sample contained 20 parts of water and 80 parts of milk, A witness who was produced for the defence said no water had been put in the milk; but, 011 being cross-examined, he said some water might have got in the cans before the milk was put into them. A fine of 40s. and 12s. costs was imposed on the defendant.DOCTORED BEER.-& the Stafford Petty Sessions recently, a publican was charged by the Inland Revenue authorities with having in his possedsion, and adulterating beer with, grains of paradise, whereby he had rendered himself liable to a penalty of $200. The defendant pleaded guilty, and the Bench imposed a fine of &50. The popular notion that the seeds of the Ainomutn inelegueta have a deleterous effect on the system is wholly unwarranted, the grains being a staple article of consumption on the West Coabt of Africa, and much esteemed a1 a seasoner to food. If nothing worse than grains of paradise are infused into malt liquors, the consumers of such need be under n i apprehension as to possible evil consequences. The pernicious adulteration of which the Excise and public should beware is the cocculus indicus. It is a150 THE ANALYST. significant fact that while large quantities of this poisonous berry are annually imported into this country, the ostensible use for the same is almost nil. An ointment of cocculus was o5cial in the British Pharmacopoeia of 1864 (employed in certain skin affections), but is now quite discarded. It is not used in veterinary medicine in any way, and we are forced to the conclusion that the greater part received into this country is applied to illegal purposes-to ‘I doctoring ” beer and ale.-Lafizeet.