118 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. SPIRITS OF NITRE AND CREAM OF TARTAR.-John Pennock, grocer, of Norton, was charged at the County Petty Sessions, at Stockton, with selling adulterated spirits of nitre and cream of tartar. Mr. C. H. Archer, of Stockton, defended. Supt. Bell, inspector under the Act, stated that on the 4th February he purchased six ounces of spirits of sweet nitre at the defendant’s shop.He told the defendant it was for purposes of analysis. He divided it into three portions, one of which he gave to the defendant, the second he retained, and the third he sent to Mr. Edger, of Newcastle, the County Analyst, who certified it to contain 25 per cent. more water than genuine iiitre contained. There was a fair proportion of nitrous ether. On the same day he purchased four ounces of cream of tartar, and the same process as mentioned in the first case was gone through.Mr. Edger certified the article to contain an excess of tartrate of lime-tartrate of lime, 8.5 per cent. ; sand, 1.2 per cent. ; sulphate of baryta, 17 per cent. He produced the analyst’s certificate in each case. Mr. Archer said that in the first case his defence was that although the nitre was of inferior quality it was a commercial article, and of the quality usually sold.The first quality of nitre was seldom produced, the second was usually sold in town, and the third was generally sold in the country for cattle. Mr. Bell paid for an inferior article, and he was entitled to no better quality than he got. Mere inferiority was no ground on which to convict a man under the Act, and he therefore asked the bench to dismiss his client.As to the cream of tartar, the tartrate of lime was left in through the mode of production ; and the article, like the nitre, was sold precisely as it was got in the first instance. Mr. Dodgson, of the firm of Mandale, Dodgson and Co., bore out Mr. Archer’s remarks as to the nitre, and added that people objected so much to paying for a superior quality that it was seldom offered ; cream of tartar, he explained, was produced from the crust of wine.The crust of red wine was cleared by means of white clay, and there usually remained a oertain amount of tartrate of lime, and not unfrequently a small quantity of the clay. He supplied the defendant with the nitre, and the cream of tartar.Supt. Bell : And of course you are consequently anxious that there should be no conviction. The bench said they were satisfied that there had been an infringement of the Act, but it mas not a serious one. They fined the defendant 1s. and costs in each case. F3upt. Bell stated that in this case the analyst had certified the sample to contain 24 per cent. mom water than waB contained in genuine nitre.Cream of tartar purchased at the defendant’s was found to be much better than that sold by Mr. Pennock ; it was nearly pure, and a summons had, therefore, not been taken out. -The Defendant said he sold the nitre exaetly as he got it from the wholesale grocers. The Bench : We fine youls. and costs. You must not sell any more of this unless you tell people what it is.h n u IN BREAD.-George Allen, baker, of walsall, was summoned at the instance of &. C. W. Stephens, sanitary inspector, for selling an article of food not compounded of the ingredients demanded, and also for selling bread containing alum, so RS to be injurious to health. The inspector stated that he purchased a two-pound loaf at the shop of defendafit, and forwarded it to Mr.E. W. T. Jones, the Borough Analyst, whose certificate of analysis he produced. The certificate showed that the loaf was adulterated with alum in the proportion of 36 grains to the four-pound loaf, and that such adulteration would tend to render the bread indigestible. Dr. J. Maclachlar, medical officer of health, gave it a8 his opinion that the quantity of alum stated would be likely to make bread injurious to health. Addressing the Bench for the defence, Mr.Nanson said he did not dispute that there was alum in the loaf, but he urged that none was put in by the defendant or at his establishment, and that the flour was used just as it came from the miller. The Bench, after hearing the defendant, considered the case proved, and imposed a fine of $3 and costs (including professional charges), on the first mmmons, the other being withdrawn.The fine and costs amounted to S7 14s. ADULTERATING MILK.-William Berridge, farmer, of Duntox Bassett, near Lutterworth, Leicester, was summoned for selling milk adulterated with water, Mr. Ricketts, solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of the Netropolitan Dairymen’s Society; Mr.Louis Lewis appeared for the defence. Mr. Rickettssaid that the prosecutor in this case-Mr. Thomas Gibson, of Walbrook Dairy, East Road, City Road-was a member of the Dairymen’s Society, and had contracted with the defendant to supply him with milk every day, which was delivered at the Midland Railway terminus. In consequence of some suspicion which he entertained as to the quality of the milk he communicated with the society’s officer.Xr. Parish, who took a sample of some of the milk in a bottle on its arriving at the St. Pancras Station, when it had become the property of Mr. Gibson. The sample was taken to Dr. Stevenson, Public Analyst, who, upon examining it, found it to be adulterated with 14 per cent. of added water. Witnesses having been called to bear out Mr.Ricketts’s statement, Mr. Barstowe said this was the kind of offence he wiahed to get hold of. Aa there appeared to have been no complaints made in the neighbowhood where J. Clay, general dealer, of Norton, was also charged with selling adulterated nitre.THE ANALYST. 119 the defendant carried on his business, he would inflict a somewhat mitigated penalty. He had power to impose a fine of $20.The costs had been heavy in this case, and amounted to $10 10s. and this, with li fine of 25, was the penalty he would inflict. The fine was at once paid. SXIXMING MILK.-& the Bath Police-court, before the Mayor apd other magistrates, Henry Francis, dairyman, of the Market, was summoned for selling milk, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. Mr.F. H. Moger and Mr. F. S. Clark defended. Mr. Moger stated that Inspector Montrtgu, on the 8th May, bought at a stall, which defendant Kept in the market, some milk, Mr. Montagu informed the person in charge of the stall that it mas purchased for the purpose of being analysed, and divided the sample into three parts. The inspector took a portion to the Public Andyst, Mr.Gatehouse. The certificate of Mr. Gatehouse certified that ‘‘ I received, on the 8th day of April, 1879, of Mr. H. 0. Montagu, a sample of milk in a sealed bottle, labelled No. 5 , signed H. G. M., for analysis, which then weighed seven ounces, and have analysed the same, and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows :-Water, 89-79 ; fat, 1.13; casein, sugar, &c., 8.40; ash, -68; cream, 4 per cent.by volume. I am of opinion that the same is a sample of milk which is deficient in fat to the extent of 66 per cent.” Mr. Gatehouse was examined in support of his certificate ; and the defendant was then called, and aocounted for the absence of fatty matter by constant dipping in the can which contained the milk, and from which milk had been sold four and a-half hours before the sample in question was taken from it, and undertook to supply Mr. Gatehouse with a can of milk to experiment upon, Mr. Gatehouse considering that the constant dipping would, to a certain extent, mix the cream with the milk. After consulting privately together, the Mayor announced that the Bench could not agree on a decision, and therefore the case would be dismissed.