12 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. BATE POLICE ConaT.-Before the Mayor (in the chair), Dr. Cardew, Messrs. Hammond Savage, and Eancock.-George Gwillim, dairymao, of 1, Margaret’s Hill, was summoned, by adjournment, for selling to Inspector Montagu a half pound of fresh butter to which water had been added, The certificate from the laboratory of Somerset House, to obtain which the case had been adjourned, wa8 as follows :-‘‘ We hereby certify that we have analysed the butter and declare the results of our analysis to be 8s follows : Water, 23.27 per cent.; salt, -78 per cent. ; curd, 1.26 per cent. ; butter fat, 74’69. The proportion of water in the sample, without allowing for loss by evaporation, is in excess of that found in recognised commercial samples of butter.The results of our analyses of numerous samples of ordinary commercial butters obtained from different parts of the county, including the South of England, show that the proportion of water present is very variable, and that it occasionally amounts to as much as 19 per cent. (Signed), J. Bell, H. J. Helm, G. Lewin.”-‘rhe Bench, after a slight consultation, said they considered the case proved, and fined the defendant $10 and costs, or a month‘e imprisonment.ALLEQED ADULTERATION OF MILK.-At the St. (lolumb Petty Sessions, lately, before Nessrs. Bennett and Trevan, Samuel Tummon, dairyman, of Newquay, was summoned “for that he on the 17th day of September last, did sell at his house in Newquay, a certain article called milk, which was found on examination by the County Analyst, to be Rdulteratcd.” Mr.Whitefirld nppcared for the defeelidant,THE ANALYST. 13 Superintendent Marshall, the prosecutor, stated that on the 17th September last he visited defendant’s house, and there saw a bucket partly filled with milk, which defendant admitted was similar to what he had been selling, and told witness the milk was for sale. Witness thereupon purchased three half pints, and informed defendant it was for the purpoEe of being analysed, as complaints bad been made as to the quality of the milk sold in Newquag.Witness divided the milk into three parts and filled two bottles, which he sealed in the manner provided by the Act, and took away the same with him, and left the remainder with the defendant. He subsequently delivercd one of the bottles to the public analyst at Truro (Mr.J. H. Collins), and retained the one produced. On the 1st of October he received from the analyst his certificate produced. The certicate was read, which stated that the milk submitted was mixed with at least 20 per cent. of water and contained 3 per cent. of sugar. The analyst expressed hi8 belief that a portion of cream had been removed, and that an ingenious adulteration had been committed.In cross-examination, Superintendent Marshall admitted that he bought the miik for analysis and not for consumption. Mr. Whitefield, in defence, contended that the summons failed to disclose any offence within the meaning of the “Food and Drugs’ Act, 1875,” and therefore the summons ought to be dismissed.The Bench, after consultation, over-ruled the objection. Mr. Whitefield then argued that, inaamuch as the milk had been purchased for the purpose of analysis, and not for consumption, it was not sold ‘‘ to the prejudice of the purchaser,” within the meaning of the 6th section of the Act. The Bench thought this was a fatal objection, and dismissed the case.-Westerla Daily Illercwy, Nov.27th, 1878. CLBaKENwELL.-Frederick Wilson, provision dealer, of 4, Eagle Street, Holtorn, was summoned by the St. Giles’s District Board of Health for selling adulterated butter, The clerk of the Board appeared for the prosecution, and the evidence of an inspcctor of the parish showed that on the 17th of Rovember he asked at the defendant’s shop for a pound of butter. He paid Is.4d. for what he received in answer to his request, and then told the defendant that the stuff would be analysed. The certificate of Dr. Edmund, analyst of the parish, showed that there was no ‘‘ butter ” in the article, It was ‘‘ animal fat other than butter fat, and not injurious to health.” The defendant said he sold it as he received it. He was ordered to pay a fine of ~ O S ., the decision not to take effect until after the decision by the High Court in the special case granted by Sir James Ingham. The Vestry Clerk said that would be heard about February 11th next. Catherine M’Dermott, milk seller, of 66, the Colonnade, St. Giles’s, was also summoned for selling milk adulterated with water to the extent of 18 per cent. The defendant was fined ~ O S ., the decision, as in the previous case, not to take effect until after February 1 lth.---Times. Bow STREET.-ADULTERATION OF BEER. -J oseph Howett, of the “ Swan and Sugarloaf” public-house, Fet.ter Lane, was summoned by the Excise for having adulterated his beer by mixing it with “ put sugar.” Mr. Highmore, from the Inland Revenue, explained that ‘(put ” was a term used t o define a course brown sugar, the refuse of scraping of barrels, which was sold at a cheap rate, and had the virtue of obsorbing more water, and imparting a “ crispiness ” to beer which a finer siigar, sometimes used by brewers, failed to accomplish.H e called Mr. James Davis, an Excise-officer, and Mr. G. N. Stoker. analytical chemist of Somerset House, who proved that a sample of beer handed to him by Fredrick Partiger, Excise-officer, contained some of the sugar, which he said was used by retail dealers, and sometimes by brewers, as a substitute for malt, to give a “ fictitious strength ” to their beer.Partiger deposed to having found three bags of the sugar, weighing blb, behind a beer-barrel in the cellar, besides forty-three empty paper bags in which sugar had been evidently placed.He tasted the beer ‘‘ on tap,” and also beer which had been just received from the brewers, and he found the former sweeter than the latter. He brought samples of both away, and also a portion of the sugar, In cross-examination by Mr. Montagu Williams, who appeared for the defendant, witness stated that he had not brought any of the samples to the court, and he admitted that, after the summons was served, he called on the defendant and told him it was “not a very serious matter,” and advised him to petit,ion the board. Mr.Williams contended that there had been no infringement of the Act, and that no proof of the quality of the sugar was before the Court. Sir James Ingbam was of opinion that sugar had been used by the defendant for the illegal purpose of fortifying his beer and giving it attractive qualities which were illegitimate. The fine for this offence was $200, but he would mitigate the penalty to %50.LAMBETH.-ADULTERATION OF Mrm.-Thomas Boehill, of Tindall Street, Lothian Road, Camberwell, appeared to a summons taken out by Inspector Sedgley, on behalf of the Vestry, for selling adulterated milk.The milk was purchased of defendant’s lad in the street, and the analysis showed it was adulterated with water to the extent of 8 per cent.-Defendant said he had sold the milk as he bought it from the wholesale dealer.-Mr. Chance advised him, as, he observed, he did all othera who made the same defence, to obtain a warranty with the milk they purchased. He fined defendant lOs., and 12s.6d. costs. Thomas Harding, of Sussex Dairy, Bishop’s Road, Vassal1 Road, was Ened ~ O S . , and 12s. 6d. costa, for eelling milk adulteratedwith water to the extent of 11 per cent. Samuel Wright, milkseller, keeping a shop in Peckham, was also summoned by Inspector Stevens for a like offence. The milk was adulterated with 19 per cent. of added water, David Llopd, of Gultan Street, The decision was formally suspended until that date.Fined €5, and 12s. 6d. * costs.14 THE ANALYST. Csmberwell, was also summoned by Inspector Sedgley for selling milk found upon analysis to be adulterated with 21 per cent. of added water. Inspector Sedgley, in answer to Mr. Chance, said defendant supplied the outdoor paupers on orders from the medical officer.Mr. Chance observed that it was bad enough to ell adulterated milk to the ordinary public, but when it was supplied to the very poor, and often sick poor, it was a great deal worse. VIOLET PowDER.-Mr. Luud, chemist, of Rosemary Road, Peckham, appeared to an adjourned mmmons for having sold violet powder in an adulterated condition. Mr. Marsden prosecuted on behalf of the Vestry.Upon the first hearing, the analysis of Dr. Bernays showed that the powder purchased by Inspector Sedgley consisted almost entirely of sulphate of lime or plaster of Paris, and was not fitted for the purpose to which it is usually put. Mr. Chance said he was hardly satisfied as to what violet powder really should be, and the matter was adjourned. On the adjourned hearing, Dr.Bernays, pointed out that it had been deemed necessary that such an article should be considered 9 drug. It was being constantly used as an outward application for children. What the best chemists in the kingdome sold as riolet powder wa8 made of pure starch Ecented by orris root. The object of violet powder being used was to prevent irritation and absorb moisture. The article in question would not answer that purpose, hut might possibly be used hundreds of times without injurious effects.The defendant said it was not the powder he sold generally. It was some sent in packets from a firm, and, having a showy sort of cover, he bad put it in the Aop window. The powder he sold, as a rule, was pure. Dr. Bernays examined some of the latter, and said that was so.The defendant stated that he first gave the inspector some of this powder ; but, a6 he said it was not enough, he gave him the packet from the window. Inspector Sedyley said the defendant remarked, when he knew the powder was to be examined, that he would sooner sell some of his own make, aa he knew nothing of the nature of the other. Mr. Chance remarked that the inference would be drawn that if th4 packet was in the window, it was for sale.He only however, called upon defendant to pay 12s. 6d. costs, and advised him not to sell such packets again. REMARKABLE CAse OF MILK ADULTERATION.-A curious case of milk adulteration has occurred at Castlerea, County of Roscommon. A sample of milk supplied by Bedilia Leech to the Castierea Work- house was Rent to Dr.Cameron, County Analyst, for analysis, who reported that it was adulterated with 16 per cent. of water. A sample similar to that sent to Dr. Cameron had been delivered to the contractor in the usual way (sealed with the Union seal), and a third sample was preserved, also sealed up. When the case came for hearing before the Castlerea Magistrates, the defendant's solicitor produced certificate from Dr.Tichborne, to whom defendant had sent as alleged the sample of milk giveii to her. The certificate not being legal evidence the case was adjourned for the production of the analysts, but Dr. Cameron only appeared. Dr. Tichborne's certificate was handed him, and upon reading it, he exclaimed that no milk ever had such a composition as that described in the analysis, which stated that it contained 19.1 per cent.of solids, including 12 per cent. of fats. He said that assuming the analysis to be correct, of which be bad no doubt, it was cream, and not the sealed sample of milk which defendant had sent to Dr. Tichborne. Finally it waa decided that the third sample of the milk produced in Court should be sent to Somerset Houe for analysis.On Saturday, thg 21st instant, the Court sat and announced that the Somerset House Chemista had confirmed Dr. Cameron's analysis. The defendant was fined the highest penalty, €20 and costs. This case shews that it is in the power of vendors to tamper with the duplicate samples left with them. If ordinary milk had been sent to Dr. Tichborne for malysia instead of crem, it must have appeared as if either of the analysts had made a mistake.He ordered the defendant to pay a fine of €10, and 12s. 6d. costs. ANALTST FOR Dowm-The question as to the appointment of an analyst for the county of Dorset been discussed in two of the boroughs during the pait few days. Mr. J. Comyns Leaoh, of Sturminster Newton, has been suggested by the city magistrates as a likely person fur the office, and they hint that the boroughs would do well to co-operate in the appointment, I n some quarters, however, there ir a little demur to this, and it is thought the office should be open-the place being advertbed in the usual manner, At the meeting of the Dorchester Town Council recntly it transpired that a medical gentleman of the locality, Dr. George, had offered to act aa analyst for the borough at a salary of €20 per mnum, and 10s.6d. fee, or a grant of &40 for chemical apparatus, reagents, &c., the apparatus to be the property of the Council. Mr. Emson moved, and Mr. Barnett seconded, the acceptance of the offer. Alderman Galpin proposed as an amendment that before the appointment the terms on which Mr. Comyns Leach would accept the office be ascertained.The Major (Mr. A. Pope) expressed himself in favour of a salary of €20 to include the public analysis, and for the private analysis the 10s. 6d. fee as provided by the Act of Parliament. Further conversation ensued, and eventually it was agreed, on the motion of Alderman Lock, seconded by Alderman Galpin, to postpone the appointment. At a meeting of the h o l e Town Council it has been agreed unanimously to oo-operate with the county in the appointment of Mr.Leach, rubject to npproval an to terms,THE ANALYST. 15 At the laat meeting of the Middlesex magistrates the ‘‘ prejudice to purchaser ” question was referred to by Sir J. H. Maxwell who said that he thought it was not probable with the strongly declared views, that the Lord Chief Justice of England would be likely to alter his opinion.He had spoken to two or three members of the House of Commons upon the subject, and when the words were proposed “ without prejudice to the purchaser,” they opposed their insertion in the Act as they foresaw the result that would occur. An analyst was appointed every year at a high salary for the purpose of carrying out the Act, but at present hie hands were tied altogether.After the passing of the Act a number of articles were sold pure in consequence of the prosecutions, but if that Act was to be abrogated the same system of adulteration would Boon be revived, and he thought the Court should take action in the matter for the purpose af obtaining an amendment of the Act. He therefore moved, “That in the opinion of this Court the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, 1875, requires amendment in order to render proceedings for seliing adulterated articles more simple and effectual; and a copy of this be sent to the Secretary of 8tate for the Home Department.” Mr. Forsjth, M.P., seconded the motion, and remarked that, however adulterated an article, on analysis, might be found to be, with the present ruling a conviction could not be obtained, as it could not be shown that it had been purchased to the prejudice of the purchaser, and he saw no remedy but freoh legislation, as he had no doubt that the opinisn of the Lord Chief Justice would be followed all over the country. After some discussion the motion was then put, and negatived by 14 to 6.