THE ANALYST. 261 LAW REPORTS. DISEASED MILK.-A case under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, of a somewhat different nature to those of late heard in the Greenwich district, came before Mr. Slade, on Tuesday. George Pring, cowkeeper, of Lee, appeared to answer two summonses against him, the first for selling milk with which there was a mixture of pus and blood, and the secord for selling as milk an article not of the substance demanded.Mr. Biron, barrister, appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Plumstead District Board of Works; Mr. C. J. Carttar was for the defendant. The first summons was taken under section 3rd of the Act, and the second under the 6th, but in regard to the former, the Simmons was snbsequently amended. If the case had been proved under that section defendant would have been liable to a penalty not exceeding $50.The purchase of two lots of milk, the first on ttie 19th of March and the second on the Zlst, was deposed to by Mr. R. J. Baker, an inspector under the Plumstead Board, and Mr. Wigner, Public Analyst, certi- fied that it consisted wholly or in part of milk which had been obtained from a diseased cow, and that the milk had in consequence of the cow’s disease become mixed and coloured with pus and blood corpuscles, so as to be utterly unfit for human food.Mr. Wigncr stated in his evidence that he had examined the sample chemically, but had not found i t either watered or skimmed, but as the sample when delivered to him had an un- natural red colour he thought it best to examine it at once microscopically, anti on doing so he found a number of pus corpuscles and colourless blood corpudes, a few coloured blood corpuscles, a large number of pieces of skin of epithelial matter, probably derived from the mammary glands, and a number of peculiar bodies, unnamed, but which are never found in ordinary milk.He also detected blood bands by the spectroscope. The cream of the milk was of an orange yellow colour, and speedily became covered with a growth of mould or fungus.Mr. Heisch gave corroborative evidence and Dr. Burton, medical officer of health for Lee and Kidbrooke, confirmed their testimony. Mr. Carttar called evidence to prove that immediately the defendant ascertained that one of the cows was attacked with disease he sent for Mr. Indersoll, the veterinarv officer, at Lewisham, who had the animal slaughtered, and that all the other cows were then and now liealthy.Mr. Indersoll said they were a very good shed of cows, and some of them superior. As a rule when a cow was suffering from pleura pneumonia, the disease the one in question was labouring under, it did not give milk. The evidence as to the second summons showed that there was not quite so much impurity in the milk as in the first case.Mr. Balguy said the colouring of the milk as shown must have taken place in the body of the COW. Mr. Carttar said that was no fault of the defendant’s and it was not even suggested that water had been added to it afterwards. Mr. Biron said he was not prepared to prove that the defendant had caused the mixture to be made.Mr. Balguy said in his opinion the defendant was guilty of not having exercised sufficient caution in examining the milk, and there was a case under the 6th section of the Act. He was not satisfied that either the defendant or his wife wilfully sold such milk. He must impose a punishment which would act as a warniog to other cowkeepers. Defendant must pay a fine of 20s.on the first summons and $10 on the second, with costs of the summonses. JAMES GOBEY, milk dealer, also of Lee, appeared to two sumronses charging him with eelling milk not of the substance demanded. Mr. Baker proved the purchase. The analyst was of opinion that the milk was from a cow that had recently calved or had an external wound on her udder. There was no water added.Mr. Daniel Phillips, farmer and cowkeeper, saici he never had a cow milked until the fourth meal after calving. Mr. Fowler, cowkeeper, of Deptford, said sometimes one cow would tread on the udder of another, which would injure the milk. He believed that in the case of Mr. Pring the evil was owing to a diseased udder. Mr. Balguy inflicted a fine of 20s. and 2s. costs in each case.SINQULAE CHARQE OF STEALING MILK.-William Rockett, 35, was charged with stealing three gallons of milk, the property of his master, Lawrence Watson, on the 26th of February.-Mr. Smith prosecuted, and in opening the case said the prisoner was indicted for stealing thrco gallons of milk, but that was merely a nominal quantity, and the jury might possibly come to the conclusion that the quantity was less, but if they thought he had stolen any at all they could, of course, find him guilty.The circum- stances of the case were rather peculiar and very important, both from a public point of view and also so far as the prosecutor wds concerned. He resided a t Middlesborough, but had agencies in Hull and several other large towns for the sale of the produce of his dairies.He also obtained good milk wherever he could, and, therefore, the case was important because it was necessary that the prosecutor should maintain his reputation for selling good milk. It appeared that he received several complaints as to the quality of milk sold in Bull, and he sent down an individual to find out who was practising the deception. The result of the investigation was that the police were communicated with, and on the 26th February the prisoner was watched after receiving the milk a t the railway-station.He went home, and there he was seen to empty liquid of some kind into his can, and subsequently he added more, Samples were obtained after each adultera- tion, and on analysis were each found to contain a large proportion of water.The prisoner received pure milk, and returned a quantity adulterated with water, and it was the difference between what was received and returned that he was charged with stealing.-Mr. James Baynes, Jun., borough analjst, deposed to analysing the three samples of milk produced. The first sample taken at the railway-station only just came within the lowest limits of pure milk, and there was propably three or four per cent. of added water ; No. 2 contained an additional 8& parts; and No. 3 284 parts of water.-There was really no defence, the prisoner acknowledging that he had adulterated the milk with water. The jury found the prisoner guilty, The prosecutor strongly recommending him to the merciful consideration of the Court.-Four months’ hard labour.-Eastena Homing ~Yews.