278 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. HAMMERSMITH.-ADULTER~TED BUTTER.-John Walker, a wholesale dealer, of the Goldhawk Road, Shepherd’s Bush, was summoned for eelling adulterated butter. Mr. Webb appeared for the defendant, who did not attend. Mr. Jones, clerk of the Fulham Board of Works, attended in support of the summons, and produced the certificate of the analyst, stating that the sample was composed of 75 parts of foreign fat.The inspector, who bought the butter, said he saw a tablet hanging in the shop stating in effect, that all butter sold there was pure. Mr. Webb produced a tablet which stated that all butter sold in the shop was not pure. The inspector said that was not the tablet he saw. Reference was then made to the wrapper of the butter, Mr. Webb stating that i t bore a stamp notifying that the butter was a compound.The paper was inspected, but it was found not to bear a stamp. Mr. Webb said the defendant used a stamp of that kind. Mr. Bridge said it was a bad case, as the defendant was a wholesale dealer. He fined th9 defendant $15 and 12s. 6d. costs. WUDSWORTE.-SHAM BuTTER.-Edward Gould, of Clapham Park Road, was summoned for selling to Samuel Hallen Smith, the inspector appointed by the Board of Worke for the Wandsworth District under the Adulteration of Food Act, butter which was not of the nature and quality demanded.I t was shown by the certificate of Dr. Muter, that the so-called butter was animal fat manipulated so as to resemble butter. George Nicholls, of Clapham Park Road, was summoned for a similar offence.The defendant, who said the stuff was not sold as butter, was fined €10 and 12s. Gd. costs, which he immediately paid. GREENUWX.-ADULTERATED BUTTER-Henry Alexander Thompson, of 4 5 7 ~ , New Cross Road, Deptford, was summoned by the Greenwich District Board of Works, for selling an article of food, butter, which was found to be adulterated. Evidence was given, showing that Mr.Maslen, inspector of the Deptford district, pnrchased a half pound of butter marked at 1s. 4d. per pound, On paying for it he asked the manager, who served him, to divide the butler into three parts, as it was bought for analysis. A certificate was now produced, received from Mr. Wiper, which set forth that the article analysed contained more than 90 per cent. of foreign fat, and rather less than 10 per cent.of butter, which was not necessarily injurious to public health. The defendant’s manager said he believed that on being asked to describe the butter sold he said it was not butter but “butterine.” The inspector said that no such intimation was given, and the entry he had made in a book at the time showed that he (the manager) was reserved, and did not say anything.f i e added that subsequent to tbe analysis being made, in passing defendant’s shop he told the manager the analysis was against the article, and “butterine” was then mentioned. Mr. Slade said the defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty of $20. There mould be a fine of 40s. and 2s. cost of summons. MANCEESTER-LARD APPEAL CAsE.-An important case under the provisions of this Act was decided on Saturday last by the Lord Chief Baron and Baron Pollock.It was an appeal from the decision of the Manchester bench of magistrates, who declined to convict the respondent under the above Act for selling one pound of lard, which was found on analysis to contain 15 per cent. of water. The contention before the magistrate was that Hopley had sold Rook the lard in the same condition as he himself had bought it, and that under the 25th section of’ the Act he was entitled to an acquittal.The magistrates refusing to fix a fine, their decision was appealed against, hence the present trial. Both judges concurred in the following statement made by Barou Pollock. ‘( Is the thing sold prejudicial to the purchaser, and not of the nature demanded? I think both, though I do not mean that it is calculated to poison hlm, or interfere with his health.” From this it follows that it is not necessary to prove that the adulteration is injurious to health, but simply that the article sold is “ not of‘ the nature dernaEded.’’ The magistrates’ decision was, there.fore, reversed, and a fine infIicted.-MedicaZ Examiner.His neighbours sold the compound, and he was obliged to sell it, Defendant was fined $10, and 12s. 6d. costs.THE ANALYST. 279 THE ALLEGED ADULTERATION OF FLOUR AT SELBY. TEE adjourned hearing of summon~es against Messrs. John Croysdale and Sons, flour millers, Wbitley Bridge, near Pontefract, who also occupy four stores at Selby, for having sold flour alleged to be adulterated with alum, took place at the Selby Petty Sessions yesterday, before Mr.B. Hemsworth (chairman), Mr. W. T. Smith, and Mr. J. Adams. The defendants were summoned on two separate informatioxis under the Sale of Food and Drugs -4ct, 1875, for having sold. flour mixed with alum, in one sample equal to 18 grains of alum to four pounds weight of flour, and in another sample to ten grains of alum to four pounds weight of flour.Superintendent Gill, the officer appointed under the Act, prosecuted; and Mr. Heaton Cadman, barrister (instructed by Messrs. Arundel and Son, Pontefract), appeared for the defendants. The case was reported in the Yercury when before the Court a week ago, and it may be remembered that a certificate from Mr. A. H. Allen, county analyst, was read, giving tbe result of his analyses of two samples of defendants’ flour, as set forth in the informations.A report was also read from three of the analysts at Somerset House, giving the result of their analyses of the same samples, which was to the effect that the sample marked 29 contained alumina equivalent to 9-9-10th grains of ammonia alum, and the sample marked 30 contained alumina equivalent to 21-1-10th grains of ammonia alum per four poucds of flour, Sample 29 according to their experience contained no more alum than was found in genuine flour, and with regard to the excess of alumina in number 30, the results of their experiments did not enable them to confirm tbat it existed in the flour in the form of alum.Mr. Cadman said that at the previous hearing of the case, in course of conversation with respect to the report from Somerset House, it was stated by one of the magistrates that if Mr.Allen’s certificate had been sent to the analysts there they would have used the word alum distinctly instead of alumina. Mr. Smith remarked that what he said was that Mr. Allen’s certificate bad not been sent to the analysts at Somerset House, or they might have used another name.Mr. Cadman said that at any rate the gentlemen engaged in the prosecution of this case had not the common honesty to tell them that a copy of Mr. Allen’s certificate had been sent to the authorities at Somerset House, and he now asked for the letter that was sent to be read. Mr. Hemsworth deprecated any imputation against the prosecution, as he was sure that Superintendent Gill had no feeling against the defendants.Mr. Cadman : I ask again, was a copy of Mr. Allen’s certificate sent to Somerset House ? Superintendent Gill : Undoubtedly, in accord- ance with a letter which I will read to you. Mr. Cadman said that at the former hearing it was certainly the impression of the Bench that merely a sample of the flour was sent to London, with a request to the authorities there to make a report on it.Now it seemed that a sample had been sent, together with the report of Mr. Allen. The authorities at Somerset Houlre were either to corroborate Mr. Allen’s report or repudiate it, and they said, ‘‘ The results of our experiments do not enable us to confirni that it (the alumina) exists in the form of alum.” R e wished to know whether a letter had been received from Somerset House since Nonday last.He explained that he had sent to Bomerset House particulars of Nr. Allen’s analysis, in accordance with a request from the analysts there. Since the last hearing he also sent a letter to Somerset Bouse, to which he received the following reply :- “With reference to the preceding letter, me have to state :-First. We are of opinion that the samples did not coutain alum, and we intended this to be understood by the terms of our certificate.Second. Both samples were very limited in quantity, that marked No. 30 barely weighing five ounces. Although we were enabled, with the quantity at our disposal, to prove by duplicate experiments the presence of an excess of alumina in No.30, and to satisfy ourselves of the absence of alum in both samples, it would have been more satisfactory to us to have had a larger quantity, that we might have been able to determine and state in our certificate in what form the excess of alumina existed in No. 30 flour.-(Signed), J. BELL, R. BANNISTER, and 4. J. HELM.” ‘Mr. Cadman said that the defendants had been brought into court to answer a charge of adulterating their flour with alum, and the analysts at Somerset House had certified that there was no alum present in it.That being so, was it necessary longer to take up the time of the Court ? The defendants would not have been charged, but for a mistake on the part of Mr. Allen, and because of an inaccuracy in his tests of analysis.Mr. Smith thought they should hear further evidence. It seemed to him as if the analysts at Somemet House were persons who were not chemists, and were simply creating confusion. He thought, on the other hand, that Mr. Allen had given his evidence in a proper and straightforward manner. He stated that he first tested the bread he had made from the sample of flour sent to him by the logwood test, which told him that there was something wrong with the flour.Having found this, he then ascertained the amount of alumina it contained by a process he had already described. Mr. Cadman : To put it shortly, you found something wrong by one test ; by another test you found what you call an excess of alumina, and then you put the two together and calculated alum.Is that so 3 Yes. Mr. Cadman: Did you by any process you used find one speck or tittle of alum as alum ? No, nor nobody else. When the case was called on, Superintendent Gill said that he had got a letter on thc previous day. The cross-examination of Mr. Allen, the analyst, by Mr. Cadman, was then resumed. Sobody ever found alum in bread as such.280 THE ANALYST.Mr. Hemsworth : The analysts at Somerset House agree as to the alumina, but they don’t say in what form it is. There is a property in the flour which ought not to be in it. Mr. Cadman : That excess of alumina might arise from the process of manu- facture, and that being so, under the words of the section the defendants cannot be convicted. They had heard that Egyptian wheat was very dirty.Well, the defendants had special machinery for scrubbing and washing the wheat. They brushed it to take off every bit of clay, but if any specks remained it might be sufficient to account for the presence of alumina, Mr. Eichard Banuister, one of the analysts at Somerset House, waa then called by Mr. Cadman, at the request of the Bench. His evidence was to the effect that the result of his and his colleagues’ analjsis of the flour was the same as Mr.Allen’s, but they came to different conciusions as to the excess of alumina, Mr. Allen said it existed in the form of alum, but they found that it was not alum. We want to know their opinion as to what that excess is. Mr. Hemsworth : Then what is it ? I am sorry I cannot tell you. But there is something in the flour that ought not to be ? There is more alumina, but it may come from clay or dirt, or something which we are unable to say.Mr. Allen, i n answer to the Bench, said he still maintained his belief that there wtu alum present in the flour. At the same time Mr. Bannister was quite justified in what he had said, because he had failed to get the precise result which he (Mr, Allen) got, He had the authority of Dr.Hassall that the logwood test sometimes failed. Mr. Bannister said that at the time they tested the samples sent to them they also tested 20 other samples of what they knew to be pure flour, and the result in all the cases was the same. They then added alum to some samples, and the test showed when the alum was present; so that he thought they were justified in concluding that the test was a good one.After this evidence, the magistrates retired and consulted, and on their returning into court, Mr. Hemsworth said that they had thought the matter over, and found the evidence so conflicting that they had decided to dismiss the information. Mr. Cadman said that had the bench not thought it right to dismies the charge at that point, he would have called witnesses to prove that it was inpossible for a miller to put alum into the flour.Mr. -Hemsworth : Let’s say no more about it, Mr. Cadman applied for costs, but the bench would make no order .- Leeds Mercury, ARSENIC IN VIOLET PowI)ER.--dt Epping Petty Sessions, on May 24th, Henry George King, whole- sale chemist, of 14, Abbott Street, Xingsland Green, was charged with having killed one Eliza Sear, and also with having unlawfully sold and delivered to divers persons quantities of violet powder, containing large proportions of white arsenic and other ingredients, with the intent that it should be applied to the bodies of children of tender years.Mr. Poland opened the case on behalf of’ the Treasury, and John Nottage and Emma Grout, two grocers, were called to prove the wholesale purchase of violet powder, by them, from the defendant, and several women were called who proved having purchased packets of violet powder from the8e grocers, and using it to their children, several of whom died in consequence.Mrs. Sear lost two children, one in MSrch, 1877, and another in February, 1878. Her evidence, as to the latter child, was that it was born on the 13th February, and on the day of its birth she sEnt to Miss Grout’s shop for a packet of the powder, which was used, and the infant died on the 18th of the same month. I t was a healthy child at birth, but its face turned very red, the skin broke out all over the face and neck, and the more the redness and soreness increased, the more the powder was used, in the belief that it would do good. Soon afterwards the lower parts turned black ; this appearance rapidly extended to the body generally, ard on the day of its death it gave out from the nose and mouth a ‘* kind of black blood.” Its agony was awful, and during the night before its death it screamed continuously.-The inquiry was adjourned till the 31st.