THE ANALYST. 137 LAW REPORTS. ADULTERATED CEEAM OF TaRTaR.-six tradesmen of West Hartlepool were recently brought before a full bench of magistrates for selling adulterated cream of tartar. The superintendent of police had obtained a certificate from the County Aiialyst in each case, and these certificates gave the following results :-Tillim.n M‘Cabe, Lynn Street-tartrate of lime, 8.29 ; sulphate of baryta, 0.50 ; sand, 1.20 ; total, 9.99.Wm, S. Rutter, Lynn Street- tartrate of lime, 7.75. Francis Smith, Durham Street-tartrate of lime, 6.61 ; sand, 0.25. Robert Embleton, Stockton Street-tartrate of lime, 6.81. Thomas Layburn, Belle Vue-tartrate of lime, 7-75. M‘Cabe’s case was taken as a test case ; and in his certificate thc Analyst observed that “ commercial cream of tartar generally contains a small quantity of tartrate of lime ; ” and in M‘Cabe’s samplc it was ‘‘ present in excess.” Mr.Simpson, who appeared as the advocate of all the parties, submitted that the circumstances did not call for a conviction. The article was of the kind demanded by the purchaser, and it was impossible to keep it free from tartrate of lime. The Chairman, after some deliberation, said thc article might be considered commercially pure ; and as these were the first cases of the kiixl before them the bench W C ~ C not disposed to convict.They, hovcver, recommended tradesmen, for their own protection, to take a guarantee from the mliolesale merchant. Nor must the present decision be cited some weeks hence as a precedent. ADULTERATED LUNCH Bms.-At the Salford Police-court, James Bradshawe, confectioner, 412, Regent Road, appeared in answer to the summons charging him with having sold buns which were not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded, Mr.Walker, assistant to the Town Clerk, prosecuted. Mr. Thompstone, the inspector under the Act, said that on the 18th April he visited the defendant’s shop in Regent Road, and asked for seven lunch buns.He explained that he purchased them for the purpose of their being nnnlysed, and divided each bun into three parts. The analyst received the samples from witness the same clay, and being informed that they were adulterated, witness called at the defendant’s shop on the 30th April, and told him that the buns had been found impure. The defendant said that the buns were supplied by Mr.Casson, of Swan Street, Manchester. Mr. J. Carter Bell, the Public Analyst for the Borough, said he received the silmples of buns in question from the last witness. He analysed them, and found them to contain alum to the amount of fifty grains in the 41b. loaf. It was a very largc quantity, and that was the amount he declared it to contain after making full rcductions.The weight of each bun was about two ounces. Witness considered the buns very indigestible. The defendant now said that he purchased the goods from Mr. Casson, and broughl them to his shop ; that was all he knew about them. Mr. Makinson : Coulcl you detect alum in by the taste of the buns? Mr. Beil : No, the alum undergoes a change when mixed with the dough.Mr. Makinsoil, addressing the defenc!a!it, snid the Act, as no doubt the defendant was amare, made the seller of the adulterated article liable himself ; but he thought the character of the evidence was very different when the selling was by the person who made the bread. I t was, however, the duty of the seller to see that he got articles of a good quality, and he could not be altogether excused.The defendant was fined 10s. and costs. The defendant remarked that Rlr. Casson was considered a first-class tradesman, and it was with a desire to provide a first-class article that he had obtained the buns there. ADULTERATED MILIc.-Henry Blowers, local agent of tho Cleveland Dairy, wits charged on remand with selling adulterated milk. Mr. Fenwick, defended.Mr. F. W. Holt, sanitary inspector for the borough, had bought a pint of milk from defendant, and the County Analpt certified that the milk contained 54 per cent of added water. Rh. A. J. M. Edger, the County Analyst, now attended court, and gave evidence as to the correctness of his certificate. There was usually 86 or 87 per cent. of water naturally in milk. The Society of Public Analysts had determined that pure milk should not have less than 9 per cent of solids not fat, there never having been known to have becn less than that quantity in average milk.In the milk in question, only 8.78 per cent of solids not fat vas found, which could ]lot have been reduced except by the addition of water, Tliere might possibly be 10 per cent. of added water John Livingston, Church Street-tartrate of lime, 8 4 .The whole of the cases mere accordingly dismissed.138 THE ANALYST. in the sample produced, as his standard was low. Milk varied very little thropgliout the year. Mr. Fenwick declined to cross-examine the witness. A letter wa8 put in by Mr. Pattinson, analyst, which stated that, according to thc standard, there was amaddition of 7 per cent.of water, but that he had examined pure milk, and found it poorer. The Bench declined to admit it, as Mr. Pattinson was not present to support it. ADULTERATED BuTTER.-At the Derby Police Court, Mr. T . H. Bennett was charged with selling, to the prejudice of the purchaser, a pound of butter not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. Rlr. A. Clarke prosecuted.He said on March 16th he went to the defendant’s branch shop, Stanley Terrace, Peartree Road, and asked for a pound of Is. butter, with which hewas served by the defendant’s assistant. When he told the assistant who he was, and why he had purchased it, the latter said, 6‘ I t is not butter, it is butterine.” He did not say so till he had been told who witness was. Witness divided the butter into three parts, and sent one to the Public Analyst, gave another to the assistant, and kept the other himself.On April 26th, he received a certificate from the Public Analyst, who said that the aample consisted of two-thirds foreign fat incorporated with one-third of butter, with water 14.5 per cent., and resembled the substance known as bntterine. Though animal and vegetable fats, other than butter fat, have 8 certain nutritive value, they haye not the nature and quality of butter as an article of diet.Defendant said that the article was sold as butterine, and not as butter. The Bench imposed a fine of 20s. and costs, in all $2 8s. 6d. ALUN IN BnEAD.-At the Salford Borough Police-court, John Brtxter, baker, was summoneci for selling adulterated bread.Mr. Walker, assistant to the Town Clerk, prosecuted. Mr. Thonipstone, inspector, stated that on the 6th May he visited the defendant’s shop and saw the defendant’s wife, whom he asked for a 4-lb. loaf. The bread was supplied to him, and he divided it into three parts in the usual way, at the same time telling her that he had bought the loaf for the purpose of being analysed.On the 9th inst. he again visited the shop, and purchased a sample of the flour from which the defendant said the bread had been made. He also submitted a sample of this to the analyst. Mr. J. C. Bell, Public Analyst for the Borough, said that on the Gth inst. he received a sample of bread from the last witness, which had been purchased at the defendant’s shop. He analysed it, and found it to contain 40 grains of alum to the 4-lb. loaf. The Magistrate, RIr. Makinson, was quite satisfied that this was a very serious case of adulteration, and he was also satisfied that the adulteration had been introduced by the defendant himself. It mas a very bad case. The defendant said he hoped the magistrate would be lenient, as he was a very poor man ancl had an aged mother to support, being also himself in delicate health. Mr. Makinson said that miglit perhaps induce him to be a little more lenient than he otherwise should have been ; but it was a very bad case, and he should fine him $4 and costs. The Bench ordered defendant to be fined 5s. and costs. The flour he found to be pure.