330 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. THE ARSENICAL VIOLET POWDER CASE, At the Central Criminal Court, on the 7th of August, before Mr. Justice Field, IIenrg George Xing, Mr. Poland and Mr. Straight kurrendered to take his trial upon several indictments for manslaugbter. prosecuted for the Treasury ; Mr. Warner Sleigh and Mr. Crispe were counsel for the defence. The case that was taken charged the prisoner with the manslaughter of a child named Ringroae.On behalf of the prosecution it was stated that the prisoner carried on the business of a wholesale druggist and drysalter at Kingsland Green and had for several years been in the habit of manufacturing the article known as violet powder, whicb, under ordinary circurnstanccs, appeared to be composed of starch and orris root, or some description of perfume.I n 1875 the prisoner commenced the manufacture of some cheaper description of powder, in which terra alba, or sulphate of lime, was substituted for starcb, and this article was sold by him to a very large extent in penny packets, which were labelled ‘‘ For the Nursery, Superior Violet Powder, warranted free from grit..” The ordinary article manufaetured by the prisoner appeared to be perfectly harmless, but about twelve months ago the violet powder sold by him was found to be largely impregnated with arsenic, and the result was that a great number of children of poor persons residing at Loughton, where the powder was extensively wed, lost their lives, that result being undoubtedly attributable to the large quantity of arsenical poison contained in the violet powder sold by the prisoner.The fact of so many children dying in such an extraordinary manner attracted the attention of the local authorities in the first instance, and eventually the Government interefered in the matter, when an enquiry took place at the instance of the Treasury, and in the result the prisoner waa committed upon the present charges.The child whose death was now the special subject of enquiry was the daughter of a woman who resided at Shackleaell. I t was about ten days old at the time of its death, and it appeared that the powder supplied by the prisoner had been constactly applied to it from its birth. A postmortem examination byTHE ANALYST. 331 Dr. Tidy led to the discovery that the liver and other organs were largely impregnated with arsenic, and the death was clearly proved to be the result of arsenical poisoning.The portion of the penny packet of violet powder which remained was also analysed, and was found to contain arsenic in the proportion of thirty- eight parts out of one hundred, a quantity quite sufficient to account for the results that happened. The prisoner was examined as a witness before the coroner ; he appeared anxious to give all the information in his power, and declared that he was entirely ignorant as t o the way in which the arsenic had got into tbe violet powder.It also appeared that when his attention was called to the fact that the violet powder sold by him contained a large quantity of arsenic, he directed his traveller to get back all the packets he had Gold to his various customers, and the whole that remained in his possession mas destroyed.The case for the prosecution rested entirely upon the assumption that the prisoner had been guilty of criminal negligence in selling such a dangerous ingredient to the public. Dr. Tidy, professor of chemistry at the London Hospital, said arsenic was a very much heavier article than terra alba, and the bulk of the latter would consequently be much greater than that of arsenic. It appeared to him that a person of ordinary skill and caution, while making up packets of this description, ought to have detected the difference between the two articles.He be5eved that a portion of the arsenic found in the body of the deceased child had been absorbed through the skin and that another portion had passed off into the air while the child was being dusted with the powder, and been taken into the system through the mouth.I n answer to questions put by Mr. Warner Sleigh, in cross-examination, Dr. Tidy said that the body was very much decomposed, and although it bad been generally considered that arsenic was a preventive of decomposition, he had heard of cases where it had not had that effect, and he therefore did not regard it aa a positive fact that the presence of arsenic would delay or prevent decomposition.A long statcment made by the prisoner to a detective ofFcer was put in and read. I n this statement the prisoner described the articles used by him in the manufacture of the violet powder, the principal ingredients being corn flour, terra alba, orris root, potato starch, and rose perfume.He denied most positive11 ever having had any arsenic in his possession, and stated that he could not in any way account for the arsenic getting into the violet powder, but he suggested that upon one occasion when he sent to the shop of Mr. Fox, a wholesale chemist 2nd druggist in Bethnal Green Road, for 281b.of terra alba, arsenic had beensent to him by mistake. Mr. Henry Fox, jun., was called t o disprove the suggestion of the prisoner. He stated that he did not remember the prisoner having been supplied with 281b. weight of terra alba, and he did not think it possible that such an occurence as sending arsenic by mistake for terra alba, could have taken place.I n reply to Mr Warner Sleigh, in cross-examination, the witness said the wholesale price of arsenic was $11 or €12 per ton, whereas terr'a alba was not worth more than $3 or $4 per ton, so that it was clear that in the sense of cheapness there was no inducement for the prisoner to make use of arsenic instead of terra alba. Mr. Justice Field, at the close of the case for the prosecution, said he did not know what the jury thought of the case, but he certainly could not see what criminal negligence could be attached to the prisoner. The Foreman of the Jury said that a majority of them were of opinion that the death was the result of accident.Mr. Justice Field said that the opinion of a majority of the jury was not sufficient. Mr. Poland, in the course of a brief summary of the evidence, said that when the jury heard that 28lb of a deadly poison had been distributed for the purpose of being used upon the bodies of young children, and the fatal results that had attended it, he was sure they would be of opinion that the case was, at all events, one that ought to be fully inquired into.Mr. Justice Field said it was doubtless a proper case to be fully investigated.Mr. Poland added that the only question for the jury was, whether the prisoner was guilty of criminal neglect in supplying this poisonous article to the public. Mr. Warner Sleigh briefly addressed the jury for the prisoner, and contended that the prosecution had utterly failed in establishing any criminal negligence on the part of the prisoner, and that they ought to acquit him.Nr. Justice Field, in the course of a short summing up, said that, whatever might be the result of the inquiry, he thought there could not bc any doubt that from the very first the prisoner had met the charge most fairly, and that he had not only given all the information that he could in reference to the matter! but that the moment he was informed that there was some dangerous ingrediente in the violet powder manu- factured by him, he took measures to get back all he could of it, and destroy it.He then explained that before the jury would be justified in convicting the prisoner of this offence they must be satisfied that he had been guilty of some gross and criminal neglect. The jury at once returned a verdict of Not Guilty.Mr. Poland said that, after the full inquiry that had taken place, he did not think it adrisable to Verdicts of not guilty were, therefore, taken on all these cases, and the prisoner was ordered to be proceed with any of the other indictments against the prisoner. discharged,332 THE ANALYST. CHARGE OF SELLING ADULTERATED TINCTURE O F JALAP. At the Romsey Borough Bench, Mr.William Blissett, dispensary chemist, was summoned, on the information of Superintendent Kellaway, with selling adulterated tincture of jalap. Mr. Glaisyer of Birmingham. solicitor to the Chemists and Druggists’ Trade Protection Society, appeared for the defence. Superintendent Kellaway depoaed to having purchased from the defendant three ounces of tincture of jalap, and told him the purpose for which it was bought, I t was divided in defendant’s presence into 3 parta.One part he delivered to defendant, one to the analyst, Mr. Angell, the same dny personally, and he produced the third part. He also produced the certificate of the analyst, which stated that “The strength of the spirit equal to 16 per cent. under proof or 40’66 per cent. of alcohol by weight.There is therefore a deficiency of alcohol to the extent of a t least 9 per cent by weight. Three per cent. may fairly be alloned for loss of alcohol during preparations of tincture.” Mr. Glaisyer here asked that the analyst should be put into the witness box by the prosecutor, but this was refused. Mr, Glaisyer said he had given notice for Mr. Angell’s appearance, and that the case fur the prosecution would be incomplete if he were not called. The Magistrates decided that the prosecution could not be compelled to put the analyst in the witness box, Mr Glaisyer thereupon called for Mr.Arthur Angell, the county analyst, whe on entering the box asked the magistrates to whom he was to look for his expenses. Mr. Glaisyer said under the circumstances he would guarantee the fees, but he protested against the decision.On being sworn Mr. Angell gave the following evidence in answer to Mr. Glaisyer : I am public analyst for the county of Southampton. The certificate produced is mine, and the contents arc here.-cross- examined : I had the sample personally from the superintendent. I did not weigh the quantity of tincture I received.Tincture of jalap is made by steeping the jalap bulb in spirits. I am not a pharmacist, I obtained my knowledge from study. 1 do not remember what proportion of jalap is used in preparing the tincture. The tincture should contain 49 per cent. of alcohol and 51 per cent. of water. This is the liquid portion. I am not prepared to say what proportion of liquid there should be found in 100 parts of tincture of jalap.I cannot tell how much solid matter and how much liquid there should be in 100 parts. I have allowed three per cent. for solid, as stated in my certificate. There would be solid matter in the tincture. I am, however, not certain, but I think it is a pint. 1 did not weigh the solid matter. I took a weighed quantity of the sample and distilled it.I then took the distiliate and made it up to the same bulk m the sample. The temperature of my distillate was about 15 degrees centigrade. I then took the specific gravity ; the result was that the distillate ranged sixteen under proof. The solid matter is the active principle, I believe the spirit is of use medicinally. I believe there was sufficient pure jalap in the tincture to perform the functions of the medicine.I believe the absence of the alcohol did not a t all affect the efficiency of the preparation. At this stage of the examination the magistrates said they should not require Mr. Glaisyer to reply for the defence, as they had decided to dismiss the information. An application made by the solicitor for the defence for costs was refused, At the Bath City Police Court, recently, Francis Hilyer, dairyman, of 2, Upper Lambridge Street, was summoned for selling to Inspector Montague a pint of milk, not of the nature, substance and quality demanded, to his prejudice, on June 25th.Mr. Moger, clerk to the Urban Sanitary Authority, appeared to support the prosecution; and Mr. J. K. Bartrum represented the defendant.Mr. Moger said in this case the deprivation of fat was very considerable, which must have a very deleterious effect upon the health of infants and others who required pure milk. The certificate of the analyst, Mr. J. W. Gatehouse, was aa follows :-Water 88.60, fat, 2.20, ash, 0.72, caseine and sugar, 8.58, total 1CO. He was of opinion that the milk was deprived of 25 per cent. of its fat.Mr. Montagu deposed to purchasing the pint of milk of a man in the employ of the defendant, for which he paid him 2d. I n answer t o witness the man said he did not want to take a portion of the sample. Mr. Bdrtrum said the milk was purchased by the defendant, of two very respectable men, who he believed incapable of selling adulterated milk-Mr. Dill and Mr. Shellard. He had not very great confidence in the test of the city analyst, and their worships would recollect that he had been f i m d to be wrong in one or two instances, when the articles were subsequently sent to Somerset House. He was requested in this instance to ask that the milk be sent to Somerset House, and that the question of costs be deferred.The Bench assented to that application, and the case was consequently adjourned for that purpose.At the adjourned hearing on the 12th August, Mr. Payne (clerk to the magistrates) informed the justices sitting in pztty sessions, that he had received a report from the authorities at Somerset House, which was to the effect that the milk contained 2.69 per cent. of fat. That amount, though lower than was found in average milk of good quality, was equal to that of low quality.They therefore did not feel justified in saying that any of the cream had been abstracted. The certificate was signed by J. Bell and 6‘ Obserunlions.-This tincture should be made a i t h proof spirit. I believe the quantities should be 2; ounces of the bulb to a pint or a Zitre of spirits.THE ANALYST. 333 R. Bannister.Mr. Moger made some remarks tending to show that the difference in the analyses was due to the different times at which the tests were made. The Chairman said that although they were anxious to support the city analyst they could not enter into a chemical question. The case was then dismissed, At Brentford Petty Sessions, Mr. J. R. Hogarth in the chair, Mr. Samuel Foss, grocer, High Street, Brentford, was summoned by Mr.Gregg, an inspector under the Adulteration Act, for selling, to his prejudice, an article of food purporting to be butter, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. Mr. Gregg stated that on June 14 be visited the defendant’s shop, and bought a pound and a half of butter a t Is., a t the same time telling defendant that he wanted i t for the purpose o l sending it to the county analyst for examination.Defendant then said “ I will not Eel1 it to you as butter, but I will sell it as ‘ bosch’ butter,” to which witness returned ( ‘ I t doesn’t matter. You have given me the price of butter, and yuu may call i t by any name you like.” H e told defendant i t was necessary for him to put a label on the butter if he intended to sell i t as L L bosch,” and defendant then gave him a piece of paper from a packet lying on one side, Witness paid Is.6d. for the sample. B e produced the analyst’s certificate, which stated, “I am of opinion that the said sample contained no true butter, It consisted entirely of foreign fat other than butter fat, but such fat is not injurious to health.” The Chairman: In other worda, there was not one particle of butter in the sample you sent up to the analyst Mr.Smith: I am quite content. I t mas not injurious to healtb. MI. Smith submitted that the summons was altogether a fallacy, inasmuch a8 the purchase was not to Mr. Gregg’s prejudice, and he (Mr. Smith) quoted a case showing that as the tradesman was compelled, under a heavy penalty, to sell any article of food demanded by au inspector, every consideration should be given to the terms of sale.Defendant wan then called. H e produced an invoice showing that the article was consigned to him as ‘ 4 hosch ” and said that ‘I bosch ” and butter were considered by the trade 88 two distinct commoditiee, H e distinctly told Mr. Gregg that it was not butter, when the latter asked the price of it.Gave Mr. Gregg a paper containing the words - Notice.- This article is &old as imported, without warranty.” These papers were kept on the counter. Mr. Gregg pointed to the “bosch ” and said, Was quite certain he did not use the word ( L butter” at first. As soon as he called i t butter witness said-‘‘ We don’t sell that as butter; it is invoiced to us as ‘boscb,’ and we sell i t as ‘bosch.”’ Mr.Gregg repeated, (( 1’11 take a pound and a half of that butter,” pointing to the bosch,” and witness replied ‘‘I won’t sell that as butter.” MI. Gregg then said, ‘L Well, I’ll take a pound and a half of it,” and witness answered, ( < Wait till my assistant comes in, and then 1’11 serve you.” H e did not serve him till the assistant came.By the Chairman : Had been i n businem two years. Had never had a single customer ask to be served with ‘‘ bosch.” The Chairman : What do they ask for ? Witness : They ask for butter. By Mr. Gregg : Gave the printed notice before he had served the butter.” The Chairman said the magistrates had given the case special care and attention, and they felt that they could only arrive a t the conclusion that the evidence given by the inspector was truthful.H e (the Chairman) had put the question to defendant as to whether he had ever know2 a customer enter his shop and aEk to be supplied with bosch,” and the reply, unhesitatingly given, was “ Never.” There w u no ticket on the article, and he considered it very cruel that it should be sold to poor people as butter.Defendant might or might not give the purchaser a notice like the one that had been produced, but that did not state the article to be The preparation was no doubt meant for the consumption of the poor, and it was a tery hard thing that they should be deceived. Defendant might formerly have conducted bis businew in a proper manner, but it was not respectable to sell ‘( bosch ” for butttr.It mas the duty of the magis. trates to convict him, and the only question was as to the amount of the penally. He (the Chairman) thought that, properly speaking, it ought to be S20, the full fine, but some of the magistrates thought differently, and the penalty the bench inflicted was $6, or two months’ imprisonment. At the Wolverhampton police court, before Mr.Isaac Spooner (Stipendiary), Mr. Henry Hound, grocer and provision dealer, was summoned for selling adulterated bread. Mr. Vaughan appeared for the defence. Samuel Foy, assistant to Mr, J. G. Horder, the inspector under the Food and Drugs Act, for the district of South Staffordshire, proved to buying a loaf of bread from the defendant’s shop, and upon it being forwarded to Mr.J o n e ~ , the county analyst, he certified that i t contained 28 grains of alum to the 41b. loaf, and in his opinion such a proportion would tend to make bread indigestible, and thus injurious to health. In cross-examination Mr. Jones said the case was an average onu of alum adulteration, H e had, however, found as much aa forty grains in a 4lb. loaf in a former case.MI. Vaughan for the defence, said the defendant had been in the habit of buying his flour from respectable tradesmen, without having the slightest doubt as to its genuineness. He could also prove that in the baking process no alum whatever was placed in the flour. The Stipendiary said he should like to know if Mr. Horder pressed for a heavy penalty ; and he replied that he did not know of anything to take the case out of the ordinary line, The Stipendiary said it was a very serious offence to sell adolterated bread, and he should fine the defendant $10 and costs. AN IMPUDENT SKIM MILK SELLm.-Richard Bevan, of Doctor’s Piece, Willinhall, was charged with selling adulterated milk, On being charged, the defendant sarcastically remarked : A penny a quart, What is the price of that?’’ bosch.”334 THE ANALYST Mr.Spooner: I don’t care if it was a guinea a quart. Defendant : A ha’porth of milk; I should be ashanied to bring it into court. You shall not sell ruilk and water as milk; if you do I shall punish you. Samuel Toy, assistant to Mr. Horder,, proved purchasing half a pint of skim milk, and sending a portion of i t to Mr. Jones for analysis. The certificate of analysis of Mr. Jones was then handed in, and Mr. Spooner said 17 per cent. of water bad been added after the cream was taken away, Defendant said he should be ashamed to have a man brought into court for a quart ~f skim milk. Mr. Spooner told him he should not allow hiin to get money from people for milk and wattr as milk. Defendant made a sweeping accusation against the magistrate and inspector, whereupon Mr. Spooner told him if he did not keep a civil tongue in hie head he should punish him. Mr. Spooner : Be quiet. E e would be filled 1 2 and costs ‘I for selling skim milk and water as milk.”