THE ANALYST. 67 DISEASED MILK. l J T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v. ELDRXDGE. This was an action to recover the sum of 329 9s. 5d., the value of the milk supplied during the month of October, 18iG, the plaintiff being Mr. Westaway, a farmer near Staines, and the defendant a retail milk dealer, of Peckham, named Eldridge. For the defence it was contended that, the milk so supplied, was diseased and unfit for human consumption and that it had actually produced illness in cases where it had been used.The result of this was that the defendant had been unable to vend the milk and had thrown away large quantities, thereby68 THE ANALYST. incurring beyond the direct loss consirlcrable damage to his trade and reputation, insomuch that aftcr the 12th October he refused to buy of the plaintiff. I n course of his cvidence the plaintiff called as witnesscs to the good quality uf thc milk his wife and liis head cow-keeper.Mr. dllnutt, a veterinary surgeon, stated that after the drfendant’s refusd to receive the milk he had examined the cows and found them, gencrally, in a healthy condition ; one of the auirnds had the pmtterior portion o l the udder dried iip, :ml xn cross- examination the witness admitted that this might have resulted from previous inflammation.Professor J. A. Wanklyn stated that he received a sa::iplo of milk from the plain!iK, and Ire cIitrustcd its cheniic:il analysis to his assistant. The milh was h y f o r e, good and gmuine. I n cases of disewcl milk lie frcqucritly found that the prc- pondcrance of solids not fat, was too great. He had exarnincd the .milk al.yo, physiologically, i.e., Ae had administered a doae qf it to his a s s i s h i t , who was ill Court, dive m d well.Ci-oss-exnmined by Ptr. JViMis : X e had not used the microscope, as ho hnd 120 coi?fideizcc in it for &terting lurtcal disease. The def‘endant being called described the condition of the milk, which turned bad very qtiickly.IIe deposed that he had remon- strated with the plaintiff and had sacrificed the milk. Becoming nl:irrncd, he asked tlic Public Analyst for Lambeth to examine it. He (Dr. Muter) informed him that the sample was too far gone for analysi3, aiid he therefore supplied him with a fresh sample direct from the rail. In the result Dr. Muter warned him not to continue dealing in the milk, as some of the COWS must be diseased.Defendant accordingly returned the milk to the plaintiff, and declined to receive any more. Several customers of Mr. Eldridgo were called to substantiate his complaint as to the quality of the milk, and their evidence showed that the fluid was ‘‘ slimy ’ I and ‘‘ smelt.” Two female witnesses deposed that their infants were seriously affected by a diet of the milk.Dr. John Muter, Vice-President of the Society of Public Andysts, and Public ,4nalyst for Lambeth, &c., stated that he had received two samples of milk, The first sample being wholly unfit for analysis, he confined his researches to the second, and had observed under the microscope a quantity of PIIS and casts from the tubes of the milk glands.IIe decidedly considered the Inilk unfit for human food, as the presence of pus was a clear indication of inflammatory disease in one or more of the cows. He agreed with Mr. Nanklyn that the milk was good in fatty constituents. and also that i t had not been watered; but i t was only by aid of the microscope that the evidence of disease such as he had perceived could be detected.For that purpose ordinary chemical analysis mas useless. Cross-examined by Mr. Wright : iTo wcm having experiewe ifa the w e qf the microscope would mistake matuval fut globules of milk f o r pus glo6uLes, which h a p p a to be exit-eiiiely ckracteristic. Mr. D’Arcy Power, F.L.S., said he was assistant to the last witness. H e saw the milk under the microscope, and entirely agreed with Dr.Muter as to the presence of pus and the inadequacy of ordinary analysis to deal with such a case. Mr. Justice Denman, in summing up, reminded the jury that in face of a direct conflict of evidence they must take into account which of the two sets of witnesscs mere leait shaken i n their evidence by the cross-examination. I n the scientific evidence they had on one side Yr.Wanklyn, whose analysis was made some days after the return of the milk, and w h o ndi,tilted that he Aad lnot wed the +nZ’Croscope, and, on the other hand, they had Dr. Muter, who stated positively that he had noted certain appearances incompatible with healthy milk, and who explained that in such cases the microscope was m reliable guide. After reviewing thc evidence in a speech which occupied an hour, he left the facts to the consideration of the jury.Without leaving the box, the jury found a verdict for the defendant, and judgment wag accordingly given, with costs. It p r o d to have a fairly iiormal m o u n t of E d , solids not fat, and ash, REDUCED SPIRITS. WEBB, APPELLANT, v. KNIGHT, RESPONDENT. THis case which was an appeal from a conviction by the Burslem Justices for selling gin adulterated with water, came before Justices Mellor and Lush, on the 13th June.The certificatc of the Analyst was that thc gin was 43 under proof. The case had been previously before the Court, and had been referred back to the magistrates for a fuller statement as to whether the liquor sold was of the nature, substance and quality of Gin usually sold at theprice in the wigAbourhood, and the magistrate said he could only refer to other cases of a similar character waiting the decision of the High Court. I n these cases the followkg were the prices paid for the gin, and the percentage of water i n each case :-Prices paid, 2s.per pint, 29.8 p x cent. of watcr ; 1s. 10d., 35.6 ; IS. 4d., 32; is., 51.10 ; Zs., 44-10 ; is.4d., 40.30 ; and 1s. Bd., 62.28. After a full argument the conviction was confirmed, Mr. Jlrstice Lush saying that no doubt gin was a compound article, which had in it a mixture of water, but was i t of the quality as well as nature of the article purchased. It was R qiicstion of degree and of the quantity of water added, and here the magistrate had i n fact found that the quantity added was in excess of what could properly be added.The Court could not contradict that findirig nor differ from the decision cited. Mr. Justice Meltor’s judgment was practically identical. The purchaser could not for the lowest price, expect a purer and stronger spirit.THE ANALYST. 63 At Narylehone, John Merry, cheesemonger, was summoned for selling adulterated butter ; the analysts’ certificate showcd adulteralion with fat, other than butter fat.Tlie butter was sold wrapped in a paper, which bore the following label : (‘ This compound is warranted sold as imported, and declared according to the Act, section 8,” Mr. Greenwell said the parish did not wish t o press the case heavily, and would be content with the costs, 4s. 6d., which the defendant was ordered to pay.Thomas Dowding, cheesemonger, was summoned for a similar offence, and filled 10s. At Lambeth, Joseph Audn, cowkeeper, Old Kent Road, was summoned for selling adulterated milk, on being asked by the inspector for a pint of milk from a particular vessel, the woman serving said, (‘ oh, tbat’s milk arid watcr.” I I e then bought a pint from another vessel on the counter, which was said to contain milk. The analyst certified it to be adulterated with 9 per cent.of water, Mr. Ellison fined him 40s. and costs. I n answer to the court, the inspector said i t mas the practice when officers asked to be served with milk to be met with the reply : ‘ ( I t s milk and water we are selling.” Mr. Ellison said if a case with sufficient evidence to convict was brought before him, he would impose the uticost penalty the law allowed.At Liverpwl, lx. Elstone, grocer, was suninioned for selling preserved peas, colored with a suhstance injurious to health. The certificate of the anaiyst was that they contained 2.6 grains of crjstallised sulphate of’ copper pcr lb. Sarah Warton and Messrs. Brooks and Beck, were summoned for a similar offence, and the same fine mas imposed in each case. The case against another dcfcndant was withdrawn, because he proved that directly the peas had been purchased for analysis, he had for his own information, sent a sample to the public analjst, and finding that they were injurious he had withdr<iwn them from sale.The certificate of the Analyst, Mr. E W. T. Jones showcd that he found * 2 per cent.of fat other than butter fat-this was animal fat but was probably TTholesome. The dcfence was that the butter had been purchased from the market as Jersey butter, but it turned out to be biitterine. At Marylebone, William Hopkins, a milk seller, mas summoned for refusing to sell milk to Thomas Reeves Clifford, one of the inspectors of Paddington. On the afternoon of the 22nd ult., the inspector saw the defendant in Hall P<irk selling milk.H e went up to him and askcd him for a quart out of a can from which a customer had just been supplied. The defendant said that he could not let him have any out of that can, but he could have some out of another can he had on a barrow. The inspector said that he must have some out of the can he had first pointed out.The defendant eaid that he had not enough in it. The inspector thereupon opened tlic lid and saw Chat i t contained about three pints, and he told the defendant that he would take as much as he liked to supply him with. H e however refused to let the inspector have any of that milk. The inspector told him who he was, and that he would be summoned. These proceedings wcre taken out under the 17th section of the Food and Drugs Act, and i t says that ‘ 6 if any officer, inspector, or constable as described by the Act shall apply to purchase any article of food or any drug exposed to sale, or to sale by retail on any premises or in any shop or stores, who shall tendcr the price for the quantity which he shall require for the purpwe of analysis, not being more than shall be reasonably requisite, and the person exposing the same for sale shall refuse to sell the same to such officer, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $10.’’ Mr.Mansficld thought that the summons must fail, as the milk had not bcen exposed for sale in a shop or stores. Mr. Hortin observed that he relied on the section as far as the comma at ‘‘ sale,” and contended that the other part of the section referred to a different matter altogether.If this prosecution should fail the Act Would be comparatively a dead letter. The question was, no doubt, arguable. Mr. Mansfield now observed that there mas a great deal of ambiguity about the section, but there must be a conviction. The defendant wonld have to pay a fine of 20s.and the costs. At Westminster, Francis Baker, milk pur vcyor, of 29, Commercial-road, Pimlico, was summoned for selling milk not of the substance, nature, and quality demanded by the purchaser. I t appeared from the evidence that a pint, of milk was purchased by the Nuisance Inspector for aid., the price of the best milk, and on analysis by Dr. Corfield was found to contaiu no less than 30 per cent.of added water. The defence was that the boy who sold it had mistaken the bowl, and had served “ skim milk ” instead of the best article. At Clerkenwell Police Court, a baker was summoned for selling bread adulterated with alum. Dr. Stevenson’s certificate mas, that it contained 35 grs. of alum per 41b. loaf, which in his opinion mra8 injurious to health, The defendant’a foreman admitted in cross examination that alum was known in a bakery as $ 6 the doctor,” and that i t would give inferior flour tbe appearance of the best wheaten ; ” the clefendant was f i n d 20s.and costs, and a second summons for a similar offence on anothcr day was allowed to be withdrawn on pqment of $2 4s. costs. At Coventry, a farmer was recentlv summoncd for selling milk, f r o x which crcarn to the amount of one-fourth had been abstracted by skimming.The analysis of Dr, Horace Swete, Public Analyst, shoived that i t coiitairied 2.22 pcr cent. of fat, and he stated that the lowest quantity in good milk was 3.2. The defendant and his son and salesmen were examined, and declared that the milk had not been tampered with from the timc i t was milked to the time i t was sold.The bench dismissed the case and allowed the defendant’s costs. The defendant was fined 20s. and costs. At Wednesbury, a grocer was summoned for selling adulterated butter. The defendant was fined 25 and &2 13s. 8d. costs. The case was adjourned in order that the matter might be looked into. Thc defendant was fined 10s. and 12s. costs.70 THE ANALYST. OBITUARY. OUR readers will regret to see the announcement of the deathof Mr. J. J. Griffin, F.C.S., who has been in business for many years as head of the firm of Griffin and Sons, of Garrick-street, Covent Garden. His name appears atnong the original members of the Chemical Society when it mas founded in 1841. He made a considerable number of improvements in different kinds of chemical apparatus, and there is no question that the catalogue of scientific apparatus issued by his firm under the name of ‘‘Chemicat Handicraft,’’ has been of great assistance t o many chemists in selecting apparatus suitable for special researches.