34 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. ADCLTERATED MILK.-Thomas Robinson, dairyman, was summoned for selling adulterated milk. Mr. E. Bell defended. Nr. Supt. Marley stated that on the 21st December last he went to the Union Workhouse, where Mr. Robinson’s serving-man supplied milk. Witness purchased a pint of milk from the man, the milk was quite warm when he obtained it, which was some time after it had been taken from the cow.The analyst’s certificate was produced, and showed that the milk was adulterated by the addition of at least 8 per cent. of water. Mr. Bell stated that the milk in qnestion was obtained by defendant from the Cleveland Dairy Company. The Chairman explained from what occurred previously, they were of opinion that the Cleveland. Company respectably conducted their business.Mr. Bell, in asking the Bench to deal leniently with the defendant, said that he had had the contract for the Workhouse for the last twelve or thirteen years, and had never had the slightest fault found with him, and the milk complained of was not his own. The Bench, having regard to the position defendant occupied as a wholesale dealer, fined him 40s. and 8s.6d. costs, At Westminster, J. Foy, butterman and cheesemonger, of 30, Regency Street, Westminster, was summoned under 38 and 39 Vic., cap. 63, sec. 6, for selling an article not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the purchaser. Mr. Warrington Rogers prosecuted on behalf of the Westminster District Board of Works; Mr. St. John Wontner defended. Thomas Lightfoot, the inspector of the Board.deposed that on the 16th Dec. he purchased at the shop of the defendant half a pound of butter, paying 8d. for it. He told the woman who served him that it was for the purpose of analysis and offered her part of it. She then called his attention to a printed notice on the paper-“ This compound is sold as imported, and declared according to the Act, section 8.” He then asked if they had any “pure butter,” and the woman said ‘( No,’’ but there was a placard in the window which set forth that “new grass butter wm now on sale.” The analysis of Dr.Dupr6, of Westminster Hospital, was then put in, and ran thus :-‘‘ Only slightly flavoured with butter, and consists almost entirely of fat other than butter fat, probably beef or mutton fat.” I t was not injurious to health, I n answer to further questions, witness said that on the same day he purchased nine samples at the game price and seven of them were genuine.Mr. W ontner submitted that the defendant clearly came within the exemption of the 8th section, which enacted that no person should be guilty of any offence under the Act if at the time of the delivery of the article he should supply to the purchaser a notice, written or printed, to the effect that the article was a mixture. I n this case the defendant had done so.The importation of butter into this country was very great, and 6ome persons preferred a mixture to pure butter. The words of the section enacted that the giving of the label should protect the seller where the mixture was not injurious to health, or there was no intention to fraudulently increase the weight, bulk, or measure.He cited the case of ‘‘ Pope, appellant, and Turle, respondent” (43 Law JowmaZ, Common Pleas, Magistrates’ case, p. 129), May 28, 1874. The justices of Bedford had dismissed a Eummons for selling adulterated mustard, and the complaining person asked for the opinion of the Court above.It was stated in the case that at the time the respondent delivered the mustard to the appellant he said “ I do not sell you this as pure mustard,” and at the same time called attention to the label on the c nister, 6‘ Warranted free from injurious admixtures, but not sold as pure mustard.” On analysis the mustard was found to be mixed with wheaten flour and tumeric.The justices were divided in opinion as to the words of the 3rd section of 35 and 36 Vic., cap. 74, “ and who shall not declare such admixture to any purchaser thereof,” one being of opinion that sufficient notice had been given, and the other that the seller should declare what the actual admixture was-i.e., set out the component parts, That ‘was the issue before Lord Coleridge, Mr.Justice Brett, and Mr. Justice Grove. They were undivided in their opinion that the selller was entitled to their judgment on the ground that he did declare to the purchaser that the mustard was mixed with some other ingredient, and, even had he not, he could not come within the 2nd section (which he must to incur the penalty), because if the admixture was such as to make it an adulterated article within the meaning of the 3rd section, still he did not sell it as an unadulterated article.He was not, therefore, within either section. The next case in support of his argument was not reported,” but appeared in The Times of June 8, i875. This was also in the Common Pleas, (“ Gibson Y. Leaper.”) It was a (L case stated’’ by the Justices of Spalding, under 35 and 36 Vic., cap.74, sections 2 and 3. Appellant was a grocer at Spalding, and sold a quarter of pound of Epps’ cocoa without making any verbal statement as to its contents, but on the face of the packet were the words, “Prepared cocoa; for ingredients see the other side,” and OR the “ other side ” was a notification to the effect that it was necessary, to make the oil in the cocoa soluble and easy of digestion, to combine with it arrowroot and sugar, and such were the component parts of the packet.On analysis this was found to be substantially correct, but the Justices convicted the appellant. The Court quashed the conviction, holding that assuming the cocoa to be adulterated, it had not been sold as unadulterated. The mere handing of the packet did not constitute a complete sale, became it was open to the purchaser to reject it if it did not correspond with what he had asked for.Therefore, whether it was true or not that a mixture was necessary to make cocoa edible, this article could not be said to have been sold as 4 L unadulterated.” Now, in the present case, the inspector could W e rejected the article if he thought fit.Mr. Wontner then, He left the shop and submitted the sample for analysis.THE ANALYST. 85 ~ having referred to the vexed question now pending in the superior Courts as to the “prejudice of the purchaeer,” Sir James Ingham having held that the inspector was not a bonacfide ‘‘ purchaser,” contended that the word “ compound“ on this packet of butter was synonymous with “mixture,” and signified something consisting of various ingredients necessary to make the whole.The inspector would certainly have been prejudiced had he got pure butter, for then he would have received an article he did not expect to get, for he went with the intention of not purchasing a genuine article. Then, again, this was an imported article and sold by the defendant ILS bought, so that it was not like a ca6e where a man added to the bulk and adulterated it.The defendant had not the chance of proceeding against the person who sold it him, as the purohase had bcen made at an open market. Mr. Wontner contended, in fine, no offence had been committed under the Act, and the defendant wag exempt under the 8th section. Mr. Woolrych, having recapitulated the facts and the heads of the defence, referred to the words, to the (‘ prejudice of the purchaser.” I n his opinion, the objection was unfounded, and the inspector, purchasing an article under the provisions in section 13, mas prejudiced within the meaning of section 6, to whatever purposes he may have intended to opply the article; that he obtained an inferior commodity, having paid the price of a genuine article; that the offence contemplated by the 6th section was complete on the delivery of the impure article to the purchaser, and that the prejudice described followed as a legal consequence. That appeared to him to result from the combined operations of the several sections referred to, and any other combination would defeat the provisions of the Act.He should act upon that opinion until, if erroneous.it should be corrected by the decision of a superior Court. With regard to t’ne effect of the printed notice as a defence, he was of opinion, even assuming the notice to be, in point of form, in accordance with the section, the facts did not bring the case within the exception relied on. That only constituted a defence and exonerated the seller in the case of an article mixed with a matter or ingredient not intended fraudulently to increase its weight, bulk, or measure, The facts here, in his opinion, showed that the mixture was intended to produce the fraudulent increase described in the section.That being so, the notice would confer no protection, and it became therefore, unnecessary to inquire whether the notice was in point of form a good one, on which the question might be raised whether the term ‘( compound ” (a word used in other parts of the Act) was equivalent to the word ‘( mixture,” used in this section.He thought it became unnecessary to consider as to the notice not having been brought to the attention of the purchaser until after a complete sale and delivery, as required by the enactment; also that the facts of the case showec? the fraudulent intent described ; and the grounds on which he arrived at that conclusion were that the officer saw a printed notice that the (( best grass butter” was servcd in the shop; that, paying the price of a genuine article, he was supplied with a commodity designated as butter, but having little or none of that article in its com- position, and that for the same price he obtained genuine butter at other shops.On the whole of these facts, he considered the defence failed, and the defendant would be fined €3 and costs. Mr. Wontner asked for a ‘( case,” which Mr. Woolrych at once granted.-Times. SELLING ADULTERATED MILx.-Hannah Dunnan, milk seller, was summoned under the Food and Drugs’ Act for selling adulterated milk.-Superintendent Marley deposed that he went to defendant’s home at Stranton and saw her supplying milk from a bowl.He asked defendant for a pint, which he receivcd, and divided into three parts. The Certificate from Mr. Edger, County Analyst, was produced from which it appeared that the milk was adulterated by the addition of not less than 33 per cent.of water. Defendant denied selling “one sup” of the milk from which the samples were taken. Supt. Marley said this was untrue, as he obtained it in exactly the same manner, and from the same utensil as that from which the defendant was supplying her customers. Defendant also stated that she told the Superintendcnt that the milk he obtained for his sample wm intended for a calf.-Supt.Marley stated this remark had reference to another can of milk, The Chairman, on behalf of the Bench, reminded the defendant that she had previously had several narrow escapes, having upset the cans of milk when the officers put in an appearance, but this did not influence their decision. The maximum penalty was €20, but they would this time only fine her $3 and costs. John Brazell, dairyman, Lamb Street, was summoned for a similar offence.Supt. Marley gave evidence respecting the purchase of milk from a quantity with which customers were being supplied. The County Analyst‘s certificate showed that the milk was adulterated by the addition of not less than 17 per cent. of water. Defendant was not present, and the service of the summons having been proved, defendant Mas fined 40s.and COS~S. John Reed, of Middleton was summoned for alike offegce. The milk in this case was adulterated with at least 16 per cent. of added water. Defendant stated that he was supplied with the milk by Mr. Robinson, of California, and their agreement was that the milk should be pure. The Chairman stated that perhaps Mr. Robinson would compensate the defendant for the loss sustained owing to the impurity of the milk.Supt. Marley explained that a sample of Mr. Robinson’s milk was still at the County aiialyst’s, witness having obtained it as soon as he found the source from which defendant had his supply. Defendant was fined and costs, and the Chairman thou@\ that defendant could have his remedy by process in the County Court.36 THE ANALYST.George Hanley, grocer, Melbo Arne, was summoned for selling adulterated coffee, contrary to the Food and Drugs’ Act. Mr. Supt. Wood purchased a quarter of a pound of coffee at the defendant‘s shop. He informed the defendant that it was to be analysed, and gave him pioper notice. The analysis showed that there were 82 parts of pure coffee m d 18 parts of chicory.The defendant alleged that he did not know that the coffee was add terated. He sold it as he had bought it. He was fined Is. and the costs. He was further summoned for selling adulterated mustard to Mr. Wood who bought a quarter of a pound from the defendant. The analysis showed that there was 87 per cent. of mustard, with 13 per cent. of wheat flour and a little turmeric. Fined 9s.and costs.-Thomas Nichols, grocer, Barmby Moor, was summoned for selling adulterated coffee, Mr. Wood bought a quarter of a pound of coffee, and told the defendant that it would be analysed. The analpis showed that the coffee contained two parts of coffee and one of chicory. The defendant stated that he had sold it as he had bought it. It was not sold to him as a mixture. Fine 1s.and cosb -He was further summoned for selling to Mr. Wood a quarter of a p o n d of adulterated mustard. The analysis showed that there were 70 per cent. of mustard, 30 per cent. of wheat flour, some farina, and a little tumeric. Fine 1s. and costs. William Hoggard, grocer, Wilberfoss, was summoned for selling to Mr. Wood three ounces of sweet nitre which mas adulterated. The analysis showed that there was 33 per cent.of water, and that it was practically of no we as a medicine, The defendant said he had sold it as he had purchased it. He was fined 18. and costs. SWEET NITRE.- George H. Myers, druggist and grocer, Welton, was charged a t the Welton Petty Sessions, by Superintendent Ellerker with selling a certain drug, viz., sweet nitre, which was not of the substance and quality demanded.The Superintendent stated that he visited defendant’s shop and purchased 3 oz. of sweet nitre. I t was divided into three parts-one sent to the analyst, one detained by witness, and one by defendant, each being sealed. The report of the analyst was BB under :--“The above should be 52 degrees over proof, whereas it is o d y 15.3, thus showing the presence of about 24 per cent, of water above the standard.It contains the proper per centage of nitrous ether, and it is not rendered useless as a medicine by bein? of great alcoholic strength. 17th Dzc., 1878. Jas. Baynes.”-Defendant said he was quite ignorant that the sweet nitre he sold was not of the proper quality. Xt was sold by him as purchased from a most respectable firm in Hull.-The Chairman (a.H. Broadley, M.P.) said so far as it was their duty they were determined to carry out the Act that the purchasers should have what they expected they were purchasing. Fine and costs €1 9s. 6d. ADULTEEATED WHI~KEY.-A c u e was investigated at Bridgewater, lately, in which a publican was charged with selling adulterated whisky. The case was adjourned from the previous court, when Mr.Stoddart, the county analyst, certified that the sample was not that of ordinary whisky, but was entirely composed of plain raw green spirit, commonly called spirits of wine, lowered by thirty per cent. of water. For the defence another certificate was put in from Mr. Dugald Campbell, London, stating that the sample was genuine whisky. The case was adjourlled in order that the samples might be analysed by the Crown officeri at Somerset Houee.ADVLTERATED MILK.-Frederick R, Winn, a cowkeeper of Manor-street, Clapham, was summoned for selling milk mixed with water, to the prejudice of the purchaser, Mr. Smith. Mr. Corsellius, clerk of the Wandsworth Board of Works, who attended in support of the summons, produced the certificate of the analyst, stating that the milk was adulterated with 18 per cent.of water.-The inspector having proved the purchase of the milk from a boy in the street, the defendant said he sent out the milk in the Bame state as lie received it.-Mr. Paget fined him 40s. with 12s. 6d. costs. THE NAME BUT NOT THE AmIcLE.-Elizabeth Crawford, shop-keeper, Seaton CareW, was summoned for infringing the Food and Drugs Act.-Mr.Bell defended.-A pound of butter was purchased by the police-officer from defendant, and a sample forwarded t o the county analyst, Mr. A. M. Edger, whose observations on the certificate were as follows .-“ This does not contain a particle of butter. I t is entirely composed of fats other than butter.”-Mr. Bell admitted the offence, but stated that his client purchased it from a wholesale merchant, and had not the slightest knowledge as to its composition, otherwise she would not have sold it.Defendant had no guarantee from the merchant.-Defendant said that she purchased 36-lb. of the material as butter, at Is. 2d. per pound, and produced her invoice.-The Bench considered that the invoice was a sufficient guarantee that the stuff was sold as butter by the merchant, and, therefore, dismissed the case against Mrs.Crawford; also ordering the remainder of the grease to be impounded. The question of employing Mr. Comyns Leach as public analyst for the borough of Dorchester was discussed at the meeting of the Town Council on Tuesday last. I t appeared that Mr. Leach offered to fulfil the duties for an annual salary of 210 and the 10s.6d. fee for each analysis. Mr. George, of Dorchester, asked $20 a year and the fee. The Mayor and other members commented on the advantage of having a resident analyst, and were in favour of the appointment of Mr. George; but ultimately the matter was postponed. At Wejmouth it is proposed to appoint Mr, Leach, A CUBIOUS INFORMAT.ITY.-A Chester grocer, who was Summoned for adulteration of coffee, got off on Saturday before the county magistrates through a curioue informality.The county analyst reported, The coffee was not labelled.TEE ANAIiYST. 37 “Sample adulterated with 20 per cent. of vegetable matter, which I believe to be chicory.” The chairman (the Rev. R. Richardsop) said it it was nonsense for Mr. Carter Bell t o say he could not tellif the added matter was chicory or not.CHLOROPHYLLE.-There have recently been many prosecutions under the pIorisions of the sale of Food Act, for selling green peas coloured with copper, &c., it being alleged that the use of such colouring matter was decidedly injurious to the health of the consumer. Having this fact in view, M. Guillemare Professor of Chemistry, and M.Lecourt, manufacturer of conserves, at Paris, were struck with the advantage of substituting “ chlorophylle ” (a vegetable substance) for the colouring of green peas, &c. and we are pleased to, say that their efforts in thii direction have been quite successful. After many experiments these gentlemen have succeeded in definitely fixing ‘‘ chlorophylle ” on vegetables by adding it to that which they naturally possess, thus preserving the green colour which otherwise would be destroyed by ebullition-an operation which is necessary to insurc preservation. Besides its simplicity this process presents the immense advantage of not introducing any injurious agent into the preserved vegetables, as the products employed enter into one’s daily food. Consumers may thus place on the table, in the middle of winter, without fear of injury to health, or extra expense, vegetables admirable green and of excellent taste. The Acad6mie de Sciences of Paris has reported most favourably on the process ; and vegetables treated with Chlorophylle have been analysed by several English chemists with equally favourable results. Dr. Saunders, public analyst fur the City, hsving examined samples, writes :- ‘( The peas had a green colour and a good flavour. They were entirely free from copper or anything that would be injurious to the health of those using them as an article of food.” We consider the new process of colouring preserved vegetables a very important one, a great improvement on anything brought out before and its success is exceedingly satisfactory.-Grocer. The case must be dismissed.-LiverpooZ Courier.