10 THE ANALYST. LAW RE PORTS. COURT O F A P P E A L . Label as to mixtzere oj’ Chicoy and Cofee noprotection to vendor i f Pure Cofee asked and paid for. LIDDIARD 21. REEcE.-In this case heard in the Queen’s Bench, on 29th N O ~ . last, before Mr. Justices Lush and Manisty, a question of some general interest, having reference to the mixing of chicory and coffee was raised. The case was that a grocer had sold half a pound of an article of food called coffee to the prejudice of the purchaser, ‘‘ the same not being of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser,” contrary to the terms of the Act 38 and 39 Vic., cap.63. The case was stated thus by the magistrates :-“ Upon the hearing of the aforesaid information it was proved on the part of the respondent and found as a fact that on the 23rd of May, 1879, one Stephen Shepherd, a police-constable of the Berks Constabulary, stationed at Reading, went to the appellant’s grocer’s shop in Faringdon, in plain clothes, and asked one of appellant’s assistants to supply him with half a pound of coffee, The assistant took a quantity of what appeared to be coffee from the bulk contained in a canister and weighed it, after which it wai wrapped up in paper and delivered across the counter to the purchaser, who paid 9d.for the half pound, this being the full price for pure coffee. The purchaser then asked the assistant to call his master, the appellant, which he did, and the appellant came to the purchaser, who then informed him that he htld purchased the article for the purpose of having it analysed.The appellant thereupon, while the packet was still on the counter, called the purchaser’s attention to a label affixed to the outside of the paper in which the article was wrapped, on which the purchaser noticed for the first time the following printed words,--‘ This is sold as a mixture of chicory and coffee.’ (A fac-simile of the paper and label was annexed).The words were printed in distinct and legible characters, and the label was affixed in a conspicuous position on the outside of the package. The purchaser then said he had asked for ‘coffee’ and not coffee and chicory. He then, in pursuance of the provisions of the 14th section of the said Act of the 38 and 39 Vic., cap. 63, informed the appellant of his intention to have the article analysed by the Public County Analyst, and offered to divide the eame into three parts, and deliver one of such parts to the appellant ; but this the appellant Conviction by Nagistrutes afirmed on appeal :-THE ANALYST. 11 did not require him to do.The purchaser had no suspicion that he had received anything but pure coffee until his attention was drawn to the label by the appellant.The article was afterwards, on the 24th of May, 1879, submitted for analysis to Mr. W. F. Donkin, of the University Museum, Oxford, the Public Analyst for the county of Berks, who by his certificate, dated the 27th of July, 1879, which was given in evidence by the respondent, declared the result of his analysis in the following terms,-‘I am of opinion that the said sample is a mixture of about 60 parts coffee with about 40 parts chicory.’ The appellant was represented by a solicitor, who submitted that the appellant was protected by the 8th section of the Act, with the terms of which he had fully complied by having at the time of delivering the article supplied to the purchaser a notice by a label, distinctly and legibly printed, that the same was mixed, and the appellant’s solicitor cited and relied on the case of Sandys, appellant, v.Small, respondent,’ decided in the Queen’s Bench Division on the 26th of June, 1878 (3 “L. R.,” Q. B., 449,) in support of his contention, and urged that on the authority of this case it was unnecessary to call the attention of the purchaser to the label.The 8th section of the Act provides that ‘ no person shall be guilty of any such offence a s aforesaid in respect of the sale of an article of food or a drug mixed with any matter or ingredient not injurious to health, and not intended fraudulently to increase its bulk, weight, or measure, or conceal its inferior quality, if at the time of delivering such article or drug he shall supply the person receiving the same notice by a label distinctly and legibly written or printed on or with the article or drug to the effect that the same is mixed.’ We, however, having regard to the fact that the purchaser asked for coffee, and was supplied with an article consisting of only 60 per cent.coffee and 40 per cent. chicory, without having his attention called to the label, and without, in fact, seeing it until the purchase was completed, and also to the fact that the price he paid for the said article was a usual and fair price for pure coffee, and much more than would have been given for coffee mixed with chicory to the above extent, and also conceiving that the case cited by the appellant’s solicitor, which referred to a mixture of water with whisky, was not applicable to the case before us, were of opinion that the article sold was so mixed with intent fraudulently to increase its bulk, weight, and measure, and considered that, therefore, the appellant was not protected by the said 8th section of the Act, and we convicted him in the mitigated penalty of 2 5 and costs as before mentioned.The questions of law arising on the above statement for the opinion of this Court are :--Whether the admixture of ohicory with coffee to the extent of 40 per cent., the same being sold at the usual price of pure coffee, is to be considered a mixture of an ingredient or matter intended fraudulently to increase its bulk, weight, or measure within the meaning of the 8th section of 38 and 39 Vic., cap.63, so as to deprive the appellant of the protection that would otherwise be afforded him by the said section.And whether, assuming this question to be answered in the negative, after the completion of the sale and delivery of any mixed article sold as pure, but before its removal from the counter, the seller can avail himself of the protection afforded by the latter part of the section by calling the purchaser’s attention to the notice of mixture printed on the label.If the Court should’be of opinion that such conviction was legally and properly made, then the said conviction is to stand ; but if the Court should be or opinion otherwise, then the said information is to be dismissed.” Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Latham were for the appellant, the grocer who was convicted ; Mr.Lawrence and Mr. H. D. Green were for the complainant, in support of the conviction. The Court after hearing the counsel for the appellant, without calling on the other side, affirmed the conviction. Mr. Justice Lush said that they quite agreed with the magistrates in their finding. No one could tell the proportion of chicory, Mr. Justice Manisty said that the mixture was sold for the full price of coffee and suppose the purchaser could not read? Conviction affirmed.Milkmen selling Milk in the Street, Bound to serve Inspectors when required. Convictions f o r Mr. Marsden, the Vestry Clerk of Camberwell, attended a t the Lambeth Police Court in support of summonses taken out against tradesmen for refusing to serve the inspectors appointed by the Vestry.The matter was first before the Court a fortnight back, when, after hearing some evidence, Mr. Chance considered there was some doubt on a point of law, and directed a remand. The first case called on was that of John Parker, dairyman, of Hanover Street, Peckham. Evidence was given showing that Inspector Fisher had asked a servant of defendant, who was selling milk in the street, to serve him with a pint of milk. The defendant’s servant declined to serve the inspector, stating that all he had wag ordered for regular customers.Mr. Chance, after hearing arguments put forward by a gentleman from the office of Mr. Ricketts for the defendant, said he had fully made up his mind that the inspectors were, under the Act, bound to be served in the street, but he would adjourn this case in order to have the man in defendant’s employment summoned, so that both matters might be dealt with.Mr. Chance said refusing : -12 THE ANALYST. there were other cases before him that day, and he wished to say that he had well considered the sections of the amended Act. I t would no doubt be a great difficulty to ascertain if milk was adulterated, if a man carrying it through the streets to serve regular customers, refased to serve an inspector.It appeared to him that the amended Act was intended to meet a difficulty which previously existed. The Act also was a protection to the customer who might have ordered milk, and who otherwise would be a6 the mercy of the parties who served him. If such a law was not carried out, large quantities might be sold without the inspectors being able to ascertain if it was pure or not.If he gave force to the argument used by the gentleman who appeared for the defendant, the Act might become nugatory. He certainly should convict in such a complaint, but would grant a case for the opinion of a Superior Court if asked for. He intended to hold that an inspector had a right to ask and be served with milk in the street.William Jenkins, cowkeeper, of Cornwall Road, Peckham, was summoned for refusing to serve Inspector Fisher. On the 18th ult. the inspector met the defendant, mth some milk, and asked him to 8erve him with a pint, and told him he wanted it for analysis. The defendant was driving E horse and cart, and drove on, He followed and again asked to be served. The defendant wanted to serve him out of a particular can, but the inspector wanted it out of another. The defendant +hen said first that it was All ordered,’’ and afterwards, when he found the inspector was putting down his name and address, said, “Well, the other can contains milk and water.” Mr. Chance, after heariag corrobo- rative evidence, said it was a bad cese, for the defendant knew well he was carrying for sale a can of milk and water. He ordered him to pay a fine of S5 and costs. George Barnes, Loder Street, Peckham, milkseller, was also summoned for it similar offence. When asked by Inspector Fisher for a pint of milk, he made the usual excuse that ell he had was ordered. Mr. Chance said such an excum would not avail, as he had before remarked, and the Act would be carried out. He ordered the defendant to pay a penalty of 40s. and costs.