174 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. ADULTERATED SWEET SPIRITS OF NITRE.-& the Leeds Town Hall, TV. Greenwood, of Commercial Road, Kirkstall, was summoned by the Corporation for selling adulterated sweet spirits of nitre. I t appeared that Inspector Handford went to the defendant’s shop and asked for 6 om. of sweet spirits of nitre, for which he paid 1s. 6d., and he told the defendant he purchased it for the purpose of having it analysed by the Public Analyst.The Public Analyst (Mr. Fairley) stated that the medicinal value of the liquid depended ohiefly on the quantity of nitrous ether it contained, and that the sample submitted to him contained scarcely any of that element. The defendant said he bought the spirit of nitre, as it was, from two chemists in the town.He was fined 20s. and coste. REFUBING TO SELL IN THE STREET.-At Lambeth Police Court, a milkvendor, resident at Peckham, was summoned for refusing to serve Inspector Stevenson, LL properly authorised officer. The defence was, that inasmuch as the defendant was hawking milk in the street, he could not be indicted, the Act of 1875 applying only to things ‘‘ exposed for sale in a shop, premises, or stores.” The objection was held be fatal, but ti case for a higher court was granted.ADULTERATING BEER WITH SALT.-A~ the Worcester Police Court, Geo. Y. Houghton, landlord of the ‘‘ Market Fountain Inn,” was charged with having, on June 18th, sold ale adulterated with salt, Mr. Blakeway (of the Town Clerk’s office) appeared to prosecute; Mr. Tree defended.* Mr. Higgs, inspector, said that he asked the defendant for two quarts of home-brewed fresh ale.The ale was bottled and sealed. Dr. Swete had certified that it contained 98 grains of salt per gallon. On the previous day witness obtained a sample of water from the defendant’s well. In cross-exmination witness said that he had known the defendant for many years, and had known nothing against him or the beer he sold. Mr.Tree said that there was no evidence that anybody had found fault with the defendant’s beer. He reminded the Bench that a grain of salt was the 480th part of an ounce ; and a8 there were sixteen half-pints in a gallon, the quantity of salt whioh the defendant was charged with having in the beer analysed, 98 grains per gallon, was very small in an ordinary glass of ale.[Mr. Tree produced an envelope, showing the quantity of salt which there would be in half a pint of ale, at the rate of 98 grains per gallon]. Such a small quantity of salt could not be injurious to anybody. Instructions were issued by the Excise authorities, stating what articles were not to be put in beer, and not a word waB said about salt. Salt in small quantities preserved beer.A certificate by Dr. Swete was put in, stating that beer brewed from the water which had been pumped from the defendant’s well would not contain more than 25 grains of salt. Dr. Swete was examined, and said that he had analysed the water from the defendant’s well, and found that it contained 104 grains of salt per gallon. In cross-examination, Dr. Swete said that from 70 to 75 grains per gdon had been put into the beer.The beer was not home- brewed fresh beer. Any beer containing more than 70 grain0 per gallon had a salt taste. The natural taste of beer was not salt. In re-examination Dr. Swete said that he did not think salt was usually put into beer. He believed that the brge brewers said that they did not put any salt into ale.If he were to drink half-a-pint of beer containing salt at the rate of 98 grains per gallon he should be thirsty and should want another glass. Unfortunately the Excise authorities allowed substitutes for malt and hops. The defendant was then called, and said that he had been eight years at the “ Market Fountain.” Since Mr. Higgs called, he had brewed ale with other water than thdt of his well, and his customers told him the ale was not so palatable, He had been in the habit of putting a farthing’s worth of salt in 115 gallons of ale.The person who instructed him in the art of brewing told him to put in this quantity of salt. Mr. Tree said that in the future the defendant would not put any salt into his beer. Defendant was fined 10s. and 50s. costs. PROSECUTION BY THE METROPOLITAN DAIRYMEN’S SocIETY.-Thomas Rose, of Beach Farm, Binfield, Berks, mas summoned by the Metropolitan Dairymen’s Society for selling to Mr.Barham, of the Express County Milk Company, a churn of milk adulterated to the extent of 15 per cent. of added water. Mr. nicketts prosecuted, and Mr. Lickford appeared for the defendant. This case had been adjourned from the 28th of July, in consequence of the defendant having raised sundry objections to the form of the certificate, and also questioned the accwacy of the analysis.It appeared that k r . Barham contracted with the defendant for ti supply of pure milk to be delivered at Waterloo Terminus, but as it \yas found to be adulterated, complaints were made to the defendant, and on the 21st of June a churn of m a was watched from the defendant’s farm to the Waterloo Station, where Mr.Parish, the Inspector of the Metropolitan Dairymen’s Society, took samples, one of which he detained, one he took to Dr, Muter, and the third was handed to defendant. Dr. Muter’s certificate showed that it was adulterated with 15 per cent. of added water. The defendant disputed Dr. Muter’B certificate, and a He put it in to make the beer keep and to make it palatable.THE ANALYST’.175 sample was sent, at the request of Mr. Ricketts, to Somerset House, to be analysed by the Government Analyst, and his certificate, dated a fortnight afterwards, set forth that the milk was adulterated to the extent of not less than 10 per cent. Dr. Muter, who was in attendance, said that the analysis coincided with his own, as the milk at the time would have turned sour, which caused it to be much lower, and an allowance had to be made for this decomposition which was not always certain.The actual figures were practically the same as his own. He had analysed the defendant’s milk several times, and found it to be adulterated. The defendant was called, and he denied adding any wder or anything else to the milk.He took a sample to the Public Andyst at Reading, and produced his certificate showing that it was pure milk. In cross-examination by Mr. Ricketts, he said he was fined at this bourt in February, 1878, for sending up milk adulterated with water. After a lengthy examination and cross-examination of the inspector on sundry technical points, Mr.Slade said that it was his intention to decide in favour of the complainant. If the defendant wished to appeal on those points raised by his solicitor he could do so ; and as the sample was not very heavily adulterated he should fine him $33 and ;E2 12s. 6d. costs. “ BUTTER1NE.”-At Kensington Petty Sessions, William Nasli, dairyman and butterman, 46, Golborne Road, Notting Hill, mas summoned by the Kensington Vestry for selling adulterated butter.Thomas Gayland, the inspector under tho Food Adulteration Acts, sent a lad into defendant’s shop for half-a-pound of 1s. butter, which on being analysed, was found to contain 70 per cent. of foreign fat. Defendant said he bought it as (‘ butterine ” or “ bosh,” and sold it at Is. a pound without putting any name to it either a8 butter or anything else.‘‘ BUTTER1NE.”-Before the Hyde Magistrates, John Miller, grocer, of Hyde, was charged by Superintendent Cooper with having sold to the prejudice of the purchaser one pound of butter, which was not of the nature, quality, and substance of the article demanded. The case for the prosecution was that, on the 8th of July, two constables saw in defendant’s shop window a quantity of what was apparently butter, bearing a label ‘‘ Millers, butter importers, 7d.” They entered the shop and asked to be supplied with ‘‘ a pound of that butter marked 7d.” which was given to them.They told the shopman that it was purchased for the purpose of analysis. On being submitted to the County Analyst, Mr. Carter Bell, of Manchester, it was certified to be adulterated with 36 per cent.of foreign fat. The case for the defence was that the article was not sold as butter, but as ‘‘ butterine,” and that the officers on entering the shop asked to be supplied not with a pound of butter, but with a pound of “ that ” (pointing to the article which was ticketed 7d.), and that therefore the sale was perfectly legal.The case turned upon whether the article was sold as butter or butterine ; the Bench took the former view, and imposed a fine of $5 and costs. Notice of appeal was given. BUTTER AND “BUTTERINE. ”-At the Salford Police Court, before Mr. J. Makinson, Wm. Rawlinson, grocer, 316, Regent Road, was summoned for selling “butteriiie” for butter. The Town Clerk (lfr. C.Moorhouse) prosecuted, and Mr. Edge, barrister, appeared for the defendant. Mr. C. E. Thompson, inspector under the Salesof Food and Drugs Act, said that on the 11th July he went to the defendant’s shop and asked for 1 lb. of butter, for which he paid 10d. He told the defendant he had purchased the butter for the purpose of having it analysed. The defendant replied, ‘‘ Well I bought it as butter, and I expect it is butter.” Nr, J.Carter Bell, Tublie Analyst, said he had analysed the “butter” purchased at the defendant’s shop, and found it contained 85 per cent. of foreign fat. Cross-examined by Mr. Edge, witness said he should prefer butter to butterine as an article of food. He concurred generally in the opinion of the Manchester City Analyst (Mr. Estcourt) that the introduction of butterine was a boon to the working classes, and that it was preferable to a good deal of the salt butter sold.Mr. Edge mid the defendant’s shopman in labelling the butter had made a mistake, and marked it 10d. instead of 8d. per lb. The defendant really believed that he was selling Irish butter to the inspector, and therefore he (Mar. Edge) contended that defendant was not liable to a penalty.The section of the Act under vhi& the defendant was summoned, stated that a penalty might be inflicted where a person sold to the prejudice of the purchaser something which was not of the nature and quality of the article demanded. To bring the present case within the meaning of the statute there must be an intention to defraud by the clefendant.There was no such intention, as the evidence of thc inspector proved, on the part of Mr. Wawlinson, as there was a bona jide belief in his mind that it was butter which the inspector had purchased. The Town Clerk said it was unnecessary to prove any fraudulent intention ; the question was whether the defendant sold an article of the nature and quality of the article demanded.If the defendant had been defrauded by his merchant in having palmed upon him butterine for butter, there was a saving clause in the Act which provided for that. The section said that if a person purchased goods, and got a written warranty as to the quality of the goods, the persou who sold the articlm in the The Bench fined him $2. Witness handed over to the Public Analyst a sample of the butter, It was what was known as “butterine.”176 THE ANBLYST.first instance and gave the warranty was liable, if they were found not to Be what they were represented to be. A person going into a shop was entitled to get what he asked for, and that was not the case in the present instance; the inspector asked for butter and got butterine. Mr. Makinson held that the casehad been clearly proved, and that there need not be any fraudulent intention on the part of the seller to render liini liable to a conviction.As to the way in which butterine should be sold he thought it should either be plainly labelled, or that the purchaser should be given to understand that butterine and not butter was being sold. In this case he thought a small penalty would meet the ends of justice, and fined the defendant 2s.6d. and costs. CHICORY AND CoFFEE.-At the South Staffordshire Stipendiary’s Court, before Mr. W. I?. F. Boughey (stipendiary magistrate), Mr. Thomas Bird, grocer, Spon Lane, was summoned by Mr. J. G. Horder, the inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act for the district of South Staffordshire, for selling adulterated coffee.Mr. Horder’s assistant proved to visiting the defendant’s shop and asking for a quantity of pure coffee. Having been supplied, the defendant was informed that the coffee had been purchased for the purpose of being analysed, and that a portion of it would be forwarded to the County Analyst. A certificate had been received from Mr. Jones, the County Analyst, stating that the coffee contained 70 per cent.of chicory. The Stipendiary fined the defendant 2s. 6d. and costs. ALUM IN Bum-At the Cambridge Petty Sessions last month an adjourned case mas heard, in which Mr. T. F. Peacock, baker and confectioner, of King Street, was charged with selling buns mixed with alum, so as to render the said articles of food injurious to health. The Town Clerk prosecuted ; Mr.J. W. Cooper appeared for the defendant, and also to watch the case on behalf of Messrs. Smith and Sons, of Norwich, the makers of the ‘‘ Norfolk Baking Powder.” ’Inspector Phillips said : I went to the defendant’s shop and got a packet of baking powder from among a large quantity in a box. I marked it with a crom, and gave it to Mr. Knights to be‘ analysed. I then went to Messrs.Gladwyn & Yockney’s, and purohaaed three packets of the same powder. I put a seal upon each. I gave one to Mr. Knights, one to Mr. Bitton, who supplied me with them. Mr. J. W. Knights, Public Analyst, said : I received from Inspector Phillips a sample of the baking powder, and I analysed it. The following is the result of the analysis :-There was of ground rice 43.0, of burnt alum 15.20, of bitartrate of potash and bicarbonate of soda 41.80. By Mr.Adams : I did not examine for the same parts in the buns that I found in the powder. If three-quarters of a packet had been used for making 4 lbs. of buns it would account for the quantity of alum I found in the buns. By the Mayor : If that quantity WRS used it would make the buns injurious to health. By Mr.Cooper : If 11 teaspoonful of powder was put to a pound of flour, in my opinion it would render it injurious to health. I know Mr. Sutton, Public Analyst for the County of Norfolk. If he states that this powder, mixed with bread according to directions (one teaspoonful to a pound), is not injurious to health, he is wrong. I know there is potash among the constituents of this powder in sufficient quantity for me to distinguish it.The Mayor said the question was whether the defendant committed the offence with a guilty intention. Mr. Cooper said that was the first question, and the second was, Was the alum injurious to health? The defendant might possibly have put more powder in than the directions allowed. By Mr. Adams : Four teaspoonfuls of this powder would weigh a little over half-an-ounce.Mr. Cooper submitted that under the 5th Section the defendant was not liable unless he knew that the admixture of that powder would produce the effect, sud make it injurious to health. The defendant did not know that the article he put in was injurious to health, and he might have put more in than the directions allowed. He proposed to bring before them the Public Analyst for the County of Norfolk, who would show them that one part of Mr.Knights’ analysis of that was without doubt a mistake. The Town Clerk said Mr. Cooper would have an opportunity of going into the question, for they mould summon the people for selling the baking powder. Mr. Cooper said he would not go into that case then. The defendant was not liable unless they could shorn that he had knowledge that the powder was injurious to health, Supposing he did it wilfully, he submitted that he (defendant) did not know the baking powder contained an ingredient that would render it injurious to health.The Mayor : You cannot get over the broad fact that therewas alum in the buns. Mr. Cooper said they did not dispute that.The question was whether the defendant knew the powder was injurious to health ; if he did not know, they would have to acquit him. &lr. Hurrell said his opinion was that the defendant had done something innocently; but he was innocent of the offence. The defendant said the reason why he used more bakingpowder than the directions said was because the buns required more.Mr, Hurrell pointed out to Mr. Cooper that at the end of Section 6 it read Could he with reasonable diligence have obtained that knowledge.” He held he (the defendant) could. The defendant was then sworn, and said: I am a baker, living in KingTHE ANALYST. 177 Street. I have been in the habit of using this Norfolk baking powder ever since I have been there. I u8e it for buns and nothing else.The flour I used was the seconds flour. I put nothing but baking powder in it. I purchased it of Mr. Bitton from Gladwyn and Yockney’s. The quantity of the different ingredients I used to make these buns was 4i-lbs. of flour, a little over a quart of milk, l+-lbs. of currants, &lb. of sugar, and 9-lb. of butter and lard together. We put the baking powder into the flour when it is dry, before the dough is made.I had no means of knowing that the baking powder was injurious to health. By Mr. Hurrell: If I had known it contained alum, I should not have used it. Witness continued : There are some papers which say the powder is certified by analysis to be perfectly pure and wholesome, assisting digestion, and that is why I used it. I used this because it requires more in the buns than in the dough to get them light. By the Town Clerk : I read the directions-one teaspoonful to apoundof flour; but that didnot makeit light, so I used more. The Defendant: I know I am perfectly innocent. Mr. Hurrell : I have no doubt of it. By the Mayor : Assuming I used yeast instead of baking powder, I should use more to buns than to bread. Mr. Cooper said there were some papers which the defendant had with the powder, and which said it was certified by analysis to be perfectly pure and wholesome, assisting digestion ; therefore, the defendant thought he need not make more inquiries. He submitted that he came withiiig the 5th Section, and the case would have to be dismissed The Mayor, after consulting with the rest of the Bench, and the magistrates were of opinion that thc defendant did not use reasonable diligence, and, considering all the circumstances of the case, they fined him 1s. and expenses. Mr. Hurrell said he thought the defendmt’s character did not suffer in the slightest possible degree.