548 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. At the Southwark police court, Henry Hopkins, provision dealer, was summoned by the sanitary inspector of St. George’s, Southwark, for selling as butter a compound containing not a particle of butter. Yr. Edwards said that he purchased at defendant’s shop a half-pound of butter. I t was labelled ‘I Good butter, 1s. 2d. a pound.” He paid id. for it, and took a portion to Dr.Muter‘s for analysb, He produced a certificate from the latter, setting forth that there was not a particle of butter in it, but it WBB not injurious to health, The defendant said he sold it as he received it from the wholesale dealer a t Mile End. He thought the sanitary officers ought to look after the manufacturers as well as the dealers. Mr. Benson told him that whenever he liked to take proceedings against the manufacturer he would render him all the assistance in his power, but the defendant must pay a fine of 10s.and 12s. 6d. coats. A t the Tunstall police court, Mr. Robert Lloyd, grocer and provision dealer, was summoned under the Food m d Drugs’ Act, for sel!ing adulterated oatmeal, The oatmeal was purchased by William Giffard, an assistant to the inspector, who handed it to Mr.Jones, the county analyst. Mr. Jonee certified that the article contained 15 per cent. of barley-meal. The defendant’s reply to the charge waB that the oatmeal was precisely the same aa he had purchased it, A fine of 1s. and COB^ was imposed. The defendant wm told from the Bench that he had his remedy against the party who supplied him with the article. MABYLBBONE.-MILIL ADULTERATION.-JOhn Turney, milk dealer, wag summoned by one Of the sanitary inspectors of St.Pancras, for selling milk adulterated with water. The certificate of Dr. Eltephenson, the public analyst for St. Pancras, showed that the milk was adulterated with 8 per cent. of added water, and was deficient in butter fat, The defendant said he sold the milk as he received it.Mr. Cooke observed that the percentage of water wag very small, but as the defendant sold adulterated for pure milk, he must be held liable. He must pay a fine of 2s 6d. and 2s. costs. Simon Ebben was summoned for a similar offence, the quantity of added water being 16 per cent. The defence was that the milk was Bold as bought. BELFABT.-~VLTEBATED MILa.-Milliam Holden, farmer, was summoned by William John Anderson, sub-sanitary officer, on a charge of selling butter-milk adulterated with 28.48 parts of water.The offence was proved, and defendant was fined 20s. and costs. Defendant, on hearing the sentence of the Court, remarked that it was not justice, whereupon Mr, O’Donnell committed him for contempt of Court. Defendant then expressed his sorrow for having made use of the words in question, and hir worship did not enforce the order.-Ann Jane Carlile waa also summoned by Mr.Anderson for selling adulterated sweetmilk. A certificate was produced from Professor Hodges, borough analyst, stating that there was 34-21 per cent. added water in the sample, Defendant was fined $5 and costs. At Guildford Borough Bench, before the Mayor, Christopher Wrist, grocer, High Street, w a ~ charged with having sold a quarter of a pound of cocoa which was not of the nature and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser, Defendant pleaded (( Not guilty.” Police Constable Butcher said that on July 2i, he went to the shop of the defendant, where he purchnsed a quarter of a pound each of cocoa and coffee, and half a pound of butter, for which he paid 1s.aid. He told defendant that he ww going to have the goode analysed, and that if he choee he might retain one-thud. Mr. Cooke fined the defendant 20e. and costs.THE ANALYST. 349 Defendant replied that he did not care to do that, but that the coffee waa not pure. Mr. Superintendent Law said he received the articles named from the last witness on July 27.On the 31st of that month he handed them to the borough analyst at Southampton, and he now submitted&# certi6cate. The Clerk read the certificate, which stated that the cocoa contained 30 per cent. of starch and sugar. Defendant handed in a letter from Messrs. Epps and Co., stating that the label on the paper in which the cocoa WBB wrapped contained all that was necessary to comply with the requirements of the Act.The Mayor, having looked at the label, said it represented a true statement of the article, and if the analysis was found to be correct, the purchaser knew at the time what he waa purchasing. Mr. Law : I take it that there was a label of this kind upon the article purchased, but I maintain that it is not suficient, for the officer went into the shop and asked for a quarter of a pound of cocoa.There was no mention made as to a mixture, The Mayor : Was it supplied in a packet similar to this (holding up one of Epps’~ packets)? MI. Law : I maintain that when a person sells an article of that kind he must call the attention of the purchaser to the fact that it is mixed with some foreign substance.No person would think of reading the whole of that printed matter on the lable before he purchased. The Mayor : Then what’s the use of the label? Mr. Law ! I maintain that it is worthless. The Mayor : The purchaser has full knowledge of the nature of the article purchased by the label attached to it. MI. Law : The purchaser’s attention muet be called to the fact that it is not genuine, There being a number of other cases, it was decided to proceed with the remainder before giving a decision.-Mr.John Fulk, grocer, Woodbridge Road, was similarly charged with having sold H. quarter of a pound of cocoa. Defendant pleaded “ Not guilty,” and Hr. G. White appeared on his behalf. Police constable Butcher said that on July 27th he purchased from the defendant a quarter of a pound each of coffee and cocoa, and half a pound of butter, for which he paid 1s.and 2d. Mr. White suggested that, as there was another charge against defendant, he would like the Bench to hear them separately, SO that the one would not prejudice the other. Mr. Law : The articles, the coffee and the cocoa, were obtained at one and the same time. The Mayor : The witness can give evidence of that I think.Mr. White : Do you mean that you will hear both together ? The Mayor : Yes. Mr. White : They are separate and distinct oases, and I object, on behalf of my client, to hare them heard together. I t wan decided to hear the case of the cocoa first, and the constable stated that he handed the articles he had bought to Mr. Law, Cross-examined by Mr.White, he said that it was on a Saturday when he went to defendant’s shop. He was in plain clothes at the time. Defendant was the person who served him. He would swear that. Mr. White asked witness a number of minor questions, and the Mayor inquired if they were all necessary; they had got the fact that the constable bought the cocoa. Mr. White replied that he was conducting his case properly and fully, and he had no intention of occupying the time of the Court unnecessarily, but he had an object in view in asking the questions he had done.There had been a mistake made in the last case-the certificate was dated two days before the analyst received the articles- and he wished to conduct this case olosely. Witness resumed: He first asked for cocoa, and afterwards for flake cocoa.Mr. White ssked for the production of the sample sold. Mr. Law handed to Mr. White a packet, which he said contained the cocoa that the constable purchased at defendant’s shop. On MI. Whib opening.it, and showing the contents to the constable, the latter swore that it was not what he bought from defendant. Mr. Law was about to make an explanation, when Mr.White said he had no right to inter- fere, There was a witness under cross-examination, and until that was completed no other person had a right to interfere in the case. Mr. Law : It is to your own advantage what I was going to say. Mr, White : I want the proper cocoa produced. If this is not it, and the policeman swears that it is not, where is it 3 MI. Law : This is the cocoa that wan obtained Prom Mr.Fulk. MI. White : Well, your witneas distinctly states that it is not. The Mayor : The question is, is that the article that he bought and took to Mr. Law t Mr. White : He says it is not. Police constable Butcher, in reply to the Mayor, said the cocoa produced wm not the same as he bought from Mr. Fulk. The Mayor : Mr. Law says that is the article you brought him.There is a mistake in the certificate of the analysis, which is dated July 29, whereas I handed the articles to him on July 31. Mr. White : That’s the reason I have in addressing myself more particularly to the details in this case. Mr. Law : The certificates are all wrongly dated. No rock cocoa has been returned adulterated, The certidcate states that this is rock cocoa.A Voice : Then he doesn’t know his business. Mr. White : There has been some mistake somewhere, and one thing I know is that we hare not the right article here. The Mayor : I think this case had better be dismissed, at any rate. Nothing can be done with the analysis dated wrongly. Mr. Law : I shall ask that the whole of the cases be dismissed. The analyst has made a great mistake in dating his certificates.I cannot possibly, under the circumstances, go on with the cases. I took the articles myself and handed them to him personally on July 31. The cases were then disrniesed, and MI. Charles Seymour was informed that t h e summons against him would be withdrawn. Mr. White was making some sotto voce observations to the Bench prior to retiring, when Mr.Law observed that the police were only doing their duty. Mr. White remarked that if they had gone far enough into the case the Bench would have seen that the constable had been telling nothing bnt false- hoods from beginning to end. The Mayor said they could not allow such remarks. The matter then dropped. Mr. Lav : It is quite clear that it is the article bought from Mr.Fulk.350 THE ANALYST. At Greenmich policc court, on Thomas Clark, cowkeeper, Lewisham, appeared to a summons before 3Ir. Slade, a t the instance of the Lewisliam District Board of Works, charging him with sclling as milk an article adulterated. The case had been twice before the court, when evidence was given that a man named Robinscn was engaged by the appointed inspector undcr the Act to purchase a pint of milk a t defendant’s premises, and that on asking for such quantity and being served he tendered a three- penny piece, and received a penny change from defendant’s wife.The iuspector entered the place of business during this transaction, and said the milk was bought for analysis, when the defendant, who was in another part of the premises, entered the place of sale, and the wife of defendant went and brought a board, the back of which only could be seen in the place of sale, and the front only by passing under a porch. The board in question bore painted notices that pure milk was sold at 5d.a quart, and milk at 4d. with 20 per cent. of water, and this had been certified to exist by hfr. Heiscb, analyst to the Board.On the part of the defendant it was stated about three years ago he was summoned, and fined 20s. a t this court for a like offence by hIr. Balguy. At that time the defendant had exhibited the notice board over the door of the saleroom, and the magistrate suggested, from explanations given, that more publicity should be given, This has been since followed out, but it was asserted on the part of the prosccution that the sight of the notice board was obstructed by the porch, To settle this disputed point, i t was arranged that Mr.Slade, the magistrate before whom the present case had bcen brought, should visit the premises in question. Nr. Slade now stated that he had viewed the premises on the previous day with the chief clerk, and he confessed that in entering the porch he should not have seen the board unless it had been pointed out to him.The price a t which the analysed milk had been sold, at 4d. per quart, had notliing to do with the case, as a t various dairies pure milk mas sold a t that price. I n considering his judgment he had to look to the poor and illiterate persons who wou1.l go tp the dairy for small quantities of milk for their infants, not being able to see or read the notice if seen, and again he had to protect a tradesman who did all he thought he could do.The defendant had evidently followed out what was suggestcd a t the hearing of the former case, hut that was not sufficient and thercfore he should only impose a fine of 10s. and 5s. costs.-1Ir. Edwards, solicitor to the Board, said that the defendant having been fined 20s.previously, the fine ought to be increased, the full penalty being 220, but Mr. Slade would not alter his decision. At the Southwark police court, Mr. Griffith Jones, grocer, carrying on business a t 94, Spa Road, Bermondsey, was summoned by Mr. Thomas, the inspector appointed by the Bermondsey Vestry, for selling as prime butter a compound containing 80 per cent.of foreign fat. Mr. Thomas said that on June 13 last he saw a placard in the defendant’s window on which was written in large letters, “ Prime Ilutter, One Shilling a Pound.” As soon a8 the assistant had served the butter, witnrEs took it and divided il into three portions, telling the assistant he was going to have one portion analysed. Witness took it to Dr.Muter, who certified that there was not a particle of butter in i t ; that it W‘PS a compound of animal fat, manufactured to resemble butter, hut not iujurious to health. Mr. Benson did not think that prime butter, or any sort of butter, could be had for Is. per pound. Rlr. Edwin was positive that i t could not, and the inspector must have known it. The compound in question was largely imported from France, and was highly nutritious.His client bought i t from a large firm a t Greenwich, at 10d. a pound, and sold it for Is., and when it was sold the wrapper was generally stamped ‘ l compound ” ; but, by some mistake, the assistant forgot to stamp the wrapper. His client had promised for the future to placard i t I ‘ butterine.” Mr. Benson observed that i t was a fraud upon the public to sell as ‘(prime butter ” a compound not containing a particle of butter; but as the defendant had promised not to sell thc compound again as butter, he should infiict only a small fine of 5s., and 12s.Gd. costs. Mr. Joseph Eughes, grocer, 28, St. James’s road, Bermondsep, was fined 2s. 6d., and 12s. 6d. costs, At Sbeffield, Mr. William Sheldon, grocer, was summoned for unlawfully selling two ounce8 of sweet epirits of nitre which was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded.Mr. A. H. Allen sent a certificate which stated that the sample WIS almost destitute of the real nitrous ether, which formed the most important coristituent of “sweet spirits of nitte” and “spirit of nitrous ether” of good quality.Mr. Allen appended to the certificate a statement that sweet spirits of nitre gradually deteriorated from decomposition and evaporation of the nitrous ether contained in it. I n undiluted specimens this change occured very slowly, extending over many months, and was rarely complete. Defendant stated that he sold the nitre precisely as he bought i t from a Sheffield chemist, who declared i t to he of good quality.Edwin Wiles, Mitchell Street, the chemist from whom the nitre was purchased, said i t was entirely undiluted a t his place. He bought it from a respectable house in York. The magistrates imposed a fine of S2 and costs, pointing out to defendant that, as regarded the present case, it did not matter in what state it was when he bought it.If, however, he sold it under quality, he was liable to a penalty of $20, The question before him to decide was if sufficient publicity mas given. I n consequence of that he sent his man into the shop for one pound. for selling a8 pure mustard a mixture containing 50 per cent. of turmeric, flour, and starch. The saniple had not been watered. As a remedy it was useless.THE ANALYST.35 1 At the West Bromnich police court, Mr. Henry Dabbs, grocer, Hunter’s Lane, West Bromwich, was summoned for selling adulterated coffee. Richard Foy, assistsnt to Mr. J. G. Horden, inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act for the district of South Staffordshire, proved to visiting the defendant’s shop and asking for two ounces of coffee, and upon being supplied he divided i t into three parts, and informed defendant that he was going to have it analysed.H e gave the defendant one part, MI. Horden the other, and sent the third to Mr. Jones, the county analyst; and a certificate had been received that the coffee was adulterated with 57 per cent. of chicory. The Bench commented strongly upon the practice of selling adulterated goods, and fined the defendant 40s.and costs, or in default six weeks’ imprisonment. ADULTERATED MUSTARD AT WEDh’EsBuRY.-Edward Wardman, of Xing’s Hall, Wednesbury, was summoned for selling adulterated mustard. Fop, assistant to hlr. Horden, purchased 202. of mustard at the defendant’s shop, and on a portion of it being analysed by Mr. Jones, it was found to contain 64 per cent. of mustard and 36 per cent.of wheat flour. Defendant, who said he never sold genuine mustard, was fined 2s. 6d. and costs. HEAVY FINES FOR ADULTERATION.-MeSSrS. J. Hughes, J. Melter, and F. IIarshall, dairymen, of Camberwell, and Charles Howe, C. Radliffe, T. Williams, and E. Stills, of Brixton, were summoned a t Lambeth Police Court, by direction of the respective parochial authorities, for selling adulterated milk to the inspectors.Evidence was given as to the purchase of milk, and upon exarhation it was found in each case to be adulterated with water. For the defence it was urged that the milk had been purchased in the country, and that it was sold as it was received. The magistrate, in deciding the cases, said the milk, as stated, might have come from the country in an adulterated condition, but if parties like defendants neglected to protect themselves by having a warranty, they must put up with the consequences.Such a system was an important matter for customers, and he considered it useless to inflict small penalties. He sbould order each of them to pay a penalty of $10 and costs, mith the exception of Howe and Williams whom he ordered to pay €5 and costs.ASSAULTING AN INSPECTOR.-'^^. Helen Evans, of 35, Dattmouth Street, Westminster, was summoned for selling milk not of the nature and substance demanded by the purchaser. She was also summoned for as. aaulting the inspector while in the execution of his duty. Mr. Warrington Rogers prosecuted for the T e s t - minster District Board, aud Mr. W. Wonton Smyth defended I t appeared from the evidence that the inspectoi sent his son into the defendant’s shop on 30th June, and purchased a pint and a half of milk for which he paid 33d.After the purchase was completed, the inspector himself walkedinto tbe shop, and said the sample obtained was for ana!psis. The defendant said she knew it was wrong, and begged him to give it her back, but he told her that he was bound to do his duty.She then came from the other side of the counter and endeavoured to upset the milk. Having partially succeeded in doing this, she struck him on the head and face and kicked him, without, however, occasioning him any serious hurt. Mr. Rogers put in the certificate of Dr. Dupr6 the analyst, showing the adulteration to be to the extent of 40 per cent. Five years ago the defendant was convicted at this court for an adulteration of over 80 per cent. of water, an& fined €1J by the late Mr. Arnold. The defence was that the milk was paid for at the rate of fourpence: R qnart, and, inasmuch a8 a notice was put up stating that this quality‘was adulterated, the defendant was not liable, as it had been recently held by the Queen’s Bench in the case of a publican selling diluted spirits that the notice placed about the premises were a sufficient protection. Mr Smyth also submitted that the milk was not sold “ to the prejudice of the purchaser,” as the inspector had almost admitted that he didnot expect to get pure milk at this particular shop. The defendant admitted that the notice she relied on was covered with the shutters, as the shop was partially closed, i t being Sunday. The magistrate thought it a very bad case, and fined the defendant €5 for the adulteration, and 20s. for assaultiug the’ inspector,