194 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. CAMBERWELL BUTTER CASE.-^^^ the Lambeth Police Court, a charge of selling adulterated butter was investigated. The case had previously been remanded on the application of the defendant, Mr. A. Bullard, cheesemonger, New Chnrch Roxl, that the sample might be sent to Somerset House for analpis. On the cme being proceeclecl with on the 13th September, the msgistr& read the following certificate, which had been received from the Somerset House authorities, sigiled by bIessrs.R. Bannister, G. Lenin, and J. Cameron :-‘‘ We hereby certify that we have analysed thc butter, and declare the results of our analysis to be as folloiys :--Water 12.05, curd 1.95, salt 0.96, fat 85 04 in the 100 parts. From ;z consideration of thc results of a full analjsis of the fat we are of opinion that the butter is genuine.” The magistrate, RIr.Saunders, remarkcd that there liar1 evidently been a lamentable miscarriage on the part of some of the Cnmberwell authorities, for a case of this ltinil was calculated to do much harm to a trader, inasmuch as tlic fact of his being prosecuted for selling an adulterated article became widely known, and thongli thz fact of its being adulterated was afterwards publicly disclaimed, yet this dis- claimer would not reach a tithe of the number who had heard of the charge against tlic trader.The defendant’s solicitor, Mr. Chipperfield, assented to the magistrate’s remarlrs, and stated Clint samples had on several previous occasions been taken from his client, which had almaJ-s proved pure, whilst, in addition, a sample of lard, taken at the same time as the butter which was the subject of this rase, had been found unadulterated.He should therefore ask that full costs be given. He further remarked that he had sent a sample of this same butter to Mr. Hehner, who had had considerable experience, and Mr. Hehner was then present, and would say that the butter was entirely pure. The Prosecuting Solicitor, Mr.Ilsrsden : I shall ask for an :tdjournnient that I may get the Government analyst liere, because the certificate I have is equally strong. Mr. Snunders : This has been referred to Somerset House, the chief authority on the sdiject, slid I can do nothing if you have these analysts here. Mr. hIarsden : May Inot be allomcd to cross-examine t h o chemist ~ l i c , made this analysis ? Mr.Saunders : No, I think not. Mr. Chipperfield : Mr. Hehner would show yon, froin tlie Public Analyst’s own report alone, that the butter is pure. Mr. Saunders (to prosecuting solicitor) : If you cross-examine them I could not do anything. I must take this certificate as conclusive, and that being so, it would be mnnifestly iccon.venieiit in conducting public busiiiess to send a eample to Somerset House for niialysia RIIC~ theii bring the analysts here to be cross-examined. You may be quite sure that the Somerset Eonse authorities arc the most efficient people, for they have to decide for tlie whole kingdom, and in most important cases. Mr. Chipperfield : Mr. Hehncr reports :-“ I have analysed the sample, and find it to coiitsin 87.75 per cent. insoluble fatty acids.From this result it is obvious that the sample was free from foreign fat.” And yet Dr. Bernays says that it contains 25 per cent. of foreign fat. Mr. Saunders : I think I ought to allow all reasonable costs, as great inconvenience has been caused to this man. I will say six guineas, I think. When traders act dishonestly I am always willing to punish them, but they onght fairly to be recouped their expenses when it is found that they have acted properly and fairly by the public.Six guineas fop costs, nnd one guinea for the analyst you have brought here, will therefor2 be allowed. HEAVY FINES FOR MILK ADuLTEn-mori.-Robert Piko, a dairynian, of James Street, Exeter, was suminoned for having sold adulterated milk.Mr. C;. H. Shorto appeared on behalf of the Town Council. The proceedings were taken under the Milk and Drags Act of 18?5. Mr. Shorto said a nominal penalty would not be considered adequate to meet the denialids of justice. Mr. Lendon, Sanitary Inspector, said that on Thursday, tlie 7th September, he purchased three half pints of inilk of the defendant’s wife.On being tendered the iiiilk witness inforiiied lier that he intended to have it analysed, where- upon she said she could not spare it. Witness, however, remarked that “ he had got it,” and left. Mr. P. P. Perliins, Public -4nalyst, said he had made an analysis. He found the milk to be diluted wit11 Over 25 per cent. of wvatcr. Defendant said he kept no cows himself, but bought his milk of Mr.Brick- ncll, a dairyman. Defendant called liis wife, who bore out this statement. The Bench retired for a &ort time, and, on rclurniug, the Chairman said the case had been carefully considered by theTHE ANALYST. 196 magistrates, who regarded it as a very >;crions case. Milk was a necessary elemeiit in the food of invalids and children, who must be protected froin such imposition.Defendant would therefore be fined in the lomest amount in such cases, viz., 325 and expenses ($1 2s. 9d.)-Samuel Bricknell, dairyman, of €Iolloway Street, was summoned for a similar offence. The evidence of Mr. 3’. Perkins showed that the milh supplied by the defendant was adulterated with water to the extent of 20 per cent., and a portion of the cream to the extent of 9 per cent.had also been removed. Mr. Fryer appeared for the defendant, and it appeared, in cross-examination, that the defendant mas not present when the sample was taken, and that on the morning on which the milk was seized rain had fallen in torrents. Mr. Fryer contended that the case had not been made out, illasmuch as the Act of Parliament had not been complied with. The Act stated that the prosecutors should prove to the satisfaction or” the justices that the defendant had had notice of the iatendecl analysis and should accompany him to the analyst.He contended that inasmuch as the complainant gavc the defendant no opportunity of acconipanying him to the analyst, the Act had not been complied with. He also suggested that the water in the milk might be accounted for by the heavy rains which fell during the time of milking.Mr. Shorto, replying to Mr. Fryer’s objection, said the Act to which Mr. Fryer alluded had been repealed in 1875. Mr. George Henry Mugford, boot- maker, of Magdalen Street, and Mr. Mawrice Sewell, grocer, South Street, said they had dealt with the defendant for a number of years, and had never had caus:: for complaint. The Bench, after a brief consultation, fined the defendant 25 and ths expenses.The Chairinan said he hoped the present proceediiigs mould be a warning to parties who were veiidors of milk not to come before the magistrates. THE TINE LIXIT FOR SERVING Sum~oNsEs.-At Clerkenwell Police Court, William Gunning, niilk-vendor, of Xorih Street, Pentonville, was sumnzoned at the instance of the Vestry of Clerkenwell, to answer a cornplaint of haviiig sold milk adulterated with water.Mr, Ricketts, solicitor, attciided for the defence. From the eyideizce of Thaiq om of the sanitsry inspectors of Clerkenwell, it appeared that on the 30th June he purchased at the defendant’s shop a pint of milk, for which hc paid twopence. He told the pemm from mh3m he purchased ths milk that he should take a third portion of it to Dr.Iiedwood to have it analysed. He did so, and the certified result of the analysis was that there was 30 per cent. of water added to the milk. He understood that defendant kept no cows, but got his milk fro= wholesale dealers. Mr. Ricketts, for the defence, said, had he gone on with the case, he should havo, bceii able to show that the defendant was not much to blame in tho matter, but he hzd an objection to take to the summons mliicli he thought mould prove fatal to the proceeding, and would enable the mrtgistrate to dismiss it.The milk mas purchased on the 30th June, and these prc- ceedings were not commencsd in this Coljrt until the 12th of August ; coasequcntly, under the Act to Amend the Sale of Food m d Drugs Act, 1S73, which rcceived the Royal Assent and c ~ m e into operation on the 21st of July of the pxssnt year, the whole proceeding must be quashed unless the hearing* took place within 28 days of the day of purchttse.Milk WAS a perishable article, and this m,s specially provided for in the amended Act. Mr. Hosack (the magistrate) p3lnted out that the milk in this case was purchased before the passing of the Amendment Act.Mr. Ricketts said that did not matter. The words of the 10th section of the amended Act vero very plain, and vere as follows :-‘‘ In a11 prosccu- tions under the principal Act, and notwithstanding th3 provisions of section 20 of the same Act, the summons to appear before the magistrate shall be sexed upon the person charged with iiolating the provisions of the said Act within a rcnsonablc time, and, in case of a perishable article, not exceeding 28 days from the time of the purchsse froin such person for test purposes of the food or drug, for the sale of which iii contravention to the terms of the principal Act the seller is rendered liable to prosecu- tion, and the particulars of thc offence or offences against the ssicl Act, of which the seller is accused, and also the name of the prcsecutor, shall be stated on the summons, and the summons shall not be made returnable in a less time than seven days from the day it is served upon the person summoned.” That section made it clear that the magistrate could not convict, and therefore he had to ask for the dismissal of the sunimcns.Mr. Hosnck, having considered the section, at once dismissed the com- plaint.-Daiiid Edwards, of 230, St. John’s Street, Clerkenwell, was likewise summoned for the committal of a like offence. Inspector Cheshire said in this case the milk was adulterated with 27 per cent. of water, but as he purchased the inilk prior to the purckase of the milk in the other case, he would, with the permission of the magistrate, withdraw the summoiis. Mr.Hosack allowed that course to be adopted.- John Campion Kent, of 52, White Lion Street, Pentonville, was summoned for selling milk that was adulterated with 14 per cent. of water, but thrrt summons was also withdrawn. * This is an error. As mill ba See11 by tho sectioil qnoted, the SL(ntJJl.011.8 n w t be served within 28 days, not t,l:e lienring take place withiu that time.- [EDs. ANALSST.1196 THE ANALYST.ADULTERATED BUTTER CASE.-At Clerkenmell Police Court, Thomas Jones, butterman, of 97, Lever Street, St. Luke’s, was summoned by Mr. Edes, sanitary inspector, for having sold butter which wa8 adulterated. Mrs. Robins, of Hull’s Terrace, York Road, said that in accordance with instructions she had received from Mr.Edes, she went to: the defendant’s shop and purchased half-a-pound of butter, at 1s. 2d. per lb. After she had purchased it the sanitary inspector entered the shop and told the defendant he should have the butter analysed by the Public Analyst. The butter was not exposed in the window, and was brought by the defendant from a room behind the shop.The defendant said he had bought the butter from another person, and he did not know it was adulterated. Mr. Edes said the result of the analysis showed that the butter had been adulterated to the extent of 80 per cent. of fatty matter other than butter. HEAVY FIm.-At the Police Court, Bath, John Croswell, of 5 , Bridge Place, Holloway, was Bum- moned for having Rold during last month a pint of new milk which was not of the quality and substance demanded.On the 25th ult. Inspector Montague visited defendant’s house and asked for a pint of new milk for the purpose of having it analysed. He was supplied by the defendant with a pint of milk, for which the inspcctor gave him three half-pence. Mr. Gatehouse, Public Analyst, on analysing it, found that it contained 15 per cent. of water.In his defence defendant admitted selling the milk to the inspector, but stated that it was the last that remained of six quarts which he had purchased for another person. The magistrate fined defendant ;El0 and costs, or 14 day’s imprisonment with hard labour. Defendant replied that he could not pay the amount as he had a wife and five children. AT the Marylebone Police Court, Joseph Mason, of 55, Weedington Road, Kentish Town, wns sum- moned for selling a pint of milk, found on analysis to be adulterated with water. Mr. Ricketts prosecuted for the St. Pancras Vestry. I t was stated that the defendant was in a small way of business, and that the sample, when analysed by Dr. Thomas Stevenson, the Public Analyst of St. Pancras, was found to be adulterated with added water to the extent of 17 per cent. The magistrate fined the defendant 10s. and 2s. costs. AT Stockton-on-Tees Borough Police Court, Anthony Watson mas fined S5 and costs for selling adulterated milk, this being his fourth offence. The magistrate ordered the defendant to pay a fine of S3.