THE ANALYST. 367 LAW REPORTS. EXTRAORDINARY C~s~.-David Davis, milk dealer, 23, Red Cross Street, Borough, appeared before Mr. Benson, at Southwark Police Court, on an adjourned summons, obtained by Mr. Errington, the sanitary inspector of St. Saviour’s District Board of Workg, charging him with selling milk on the 20th ultimo containing 25 per cent. of added water. Mr. Simpson, clerk to the district board, prosecuted, and stated that on the 3rd instant the prisoner appeared before Mr.Partridge on the present charge, which he denied, and asked his worship to be allowed to send his sample of the milk to the Government analyst at Somerset House. That had been done. and now he (Mr. Simpson) and his witnesses attended to know the result. Mr. Benson told him he had received two certificates from the Government analyst.One marked 71 contained 25 per cent. of added water, and No. 72 was pure milk. I t seemed to him very strange that such should be the case if the samples were taken at one and the same time. Mr. Errington was here sworn, and said that on the 20th of September he purchased the milk at defendant’s shop, and told Mrs. Davis that he was going to have it analysed.In her presence he divided it in three portions, and sealed the bottles up with the official seal. One he left with Mrs. Davis, one he took to Dr. Bernays, and the third he kept, and marked 71. When the case was called on before Mr. Partridge on the 3rd instant, defendant produced what appeared to be the bottle of milk he left him, and said he was satisfied that i t was genuine, and requested his worship to remit it to the Government analyst at Somerset House.Stewart Ramsay, 147 M, one of the officers of the court, said that by direction of Mr. Partridge he took the two sample bottles of milk to the Government analyst, at Somerset House. The one he received from the defendant he marked 72. The latter seemed to him to be rather loose at the cork, and it smelt rancid.Mr. Errington was recalled, and in answer to Mr. Simpson, he said he had on several occasions taken milk from defendant’s place for analysing, and had left several sealed bottles with him. The bottle of milk defendant sent to the Government analyst might have been one of them, as the sample was found to be good. Dr. Bernays, Professor of Chemistry at St.Thomas’s Hospital, said he received a sealed bottle of milk from Mr. Errington on the 20th ultimo, and analysed it immediately. He had compared the Government analyst’s certificate, No. 71, with his own, and found them to correspond. H e had also examined the Government analyst‘s certificate No. 72, and was positive that it could not be the aame milk. I t was impossible, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was not the sample left by Mr.Errington on the 20th ultimo. Mr. Benson here asked defendant what he had to say after such evidence. He replied that he was positive that the bottle of milk he handed into the court or1 the 3rd instant was the same his wife received from Errington on the 20th ultimo. All former samples were destroyed as soon as he knew no proceedings were taken against him.He called his wife to support his statement, when Mr. Benson said that after haaring the evidence of Mr. Errington and Dr. Bernays, he was satisfied that Defendant had committed a gross fraud on the Court, as well a8 the Government analyst, by handing in a sample of milk which had been left with him on a previous occasion, He therefore fined him 210, and 321 13s.costs. At the Leek Police Session, before Joshua Brough, John Brough, J. Robinson, and Hugh Sleigh, Esqs., Mr. Wil!iam Tunnicliffe, grocer, of Lognor, was charged by Major Knight, inspector under the Act, with having sold two ounces of mustard, which article was not of the nature and quality demanded. Mr. Broun, of Stock port, appeared for the defendant.William Gifford, the inspector’s assistant, stated that on August 3rd he visited the defendant’s shop and was supplied witb two ounces of mustard, for which he paid 29d. He then informed the defendant that he had purchased it with the intention of having it analysed by the public analyst. Major Knight put in a certificate from Mr. E. W. T. Jones, the county analyst, to the effect that the mustard contained only 72 per cent.of real mustard, and that the remaining 28 per cent. was chiefly wheat flour and a little turmeric. Mr. Broun said that the mustard supplied to the informant was manufactured by Messrs. Cclman, of Norwich, and they had instructed him to appear on behalf of the defendant. Mustard was asked for. There were different kinds of mustard.There was the pure and simple flour of the mustard seed, and there was a mustard which was a condiment-mustard mixed with flour and turmeric. He took exception to the form of Mr. Jones’s certificate. There was a form prescribed by the Act of Parliament in which these certificates should be made out, and this form had not been adopted, The magistrates, after a short consultation, decided to dismiss the case on the technical question raised by Mr.Brow of ?he form of the certificate. At Cardiff Police Court, before the Mayor, Alderman Taylor, and Alderman Alexander, Mr. J. Roes, grocer, Grange Town, Cardiff, was summoned for refusing to supply police constable James with pepper for the purpose of analysis. The constable, who is employed on detective duty, said that on Saturday he went to the shop of the defendant and asked to be supplied with two ounces of pepper.The defeudant replied that he had no pure pepper in stock, only a mixture. The constable then asked for two ounces of whatever kind the defendant had, and placed money upon the counter for pajment of the article. The The seal was on the cork, but did not touch the bottle.He found it to contain 25 per cent, of added water. He could appeal if he thought proper. This was not a case which was contemplated by the Act.368 THE ANALYST. defendant upon this said, bbYou have been bested once Nr. James, and I shall refuse to supply YOU with the pepper.” The Bench characterised the offence of the defendant as serious, and said he would be fiued 40s.and costs. At the Gainsborough Police Court, on Tuesday, Catherine Metcalfe, of Corringham, was charged with having sold coffee adulterated with chicory and sugar. Superintendent Veitch bought a quarter of a pound of coffee a t defendant’s shop, and an analysis showed 17 per cent. of sugar, besides chicory. Defendant said the coffee tin contained the words ‘6 chicory and coffee,” and she said i t was SO a t the time.TWO or three ounces sometimes represented her weekly sale, and she sold it as she bought it. Fined 10s. and costs, At the Malton Sessions, on Saturday last, Mr, Linda11 Anderson, grocer, &c., of Old Malton, was charged by Superintendent Park, inspector under the Food and Drugs Act, with selling sweet spirits of nitre, which, according to the analysis of Mr.Fairley, of Leeds, contained 46 per cent. of water, but no appreciable quantity of nitrous ether, the article on which its medicinal value entirely depended. The defence was that the nitre was sold in the same state as when procured froin a wholesale druggist’s firm, and also that defendant told the inspector that it was diluted. Superintendent Park denied that this was said until after he warned defendant that he was about to have the c b sweet nitre ” analyscd.Defendant was fined the mitigated penalty of 10s. and 8s. costs, which he paid, remarking that he should expect the wholesale firm to refund him the amount. At Bow street, William Pitt Hitchman. 5, Museum Street, Bloomsbury, dairyman, was summoned for selling milk adulterated with water.The milk had been bought by Inspector Hoyle for the purpose of analysis, and this fact constituted the defendant’s case. He did not deny that the milk was adulterated, but argued that under the Act it was necessary that the sale of the adulterated article should have been 6 b to the prejudice ” of the purchaser. A Scotch case in which it was said the Judges of Appeal had decided that this was the correct reading of the Act, was referred to in support of this argument.Sir James Ingham admitted that everything turned upon the exact meaning of these words in the Act, b b to the prejudice of the purchaser,” and said he remembered reading the Scotch case referred to, There was also a recent case, in which the Lord Chief Justice of England had, as he remembered, made some observations, rather bearing out the decision of the Scotch Judges.He should refer to both these cases during the remand. Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecution, and produced the Euglish case referred to by Sir James Ingham. In that case, “ Sandy v. Small,” it was decided that when the purchaser knew the thing he was buying was adulterated, he was not “prejudiced” so as to bring the sale of the adulterated article within the meaning of the Act.The learned counsel argued that in the present case, a!though the inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated, he had no actual knowledge of that fact. Sir James Ingham said he should again adjourn the case. The matter was one of great importance, for it seemed to him that if the Scotch ruling was upheld the whole Act of Parliament would be made nonsense ; if so they would require a new Act.-l%nes.ADULTERATED BEER.-Richard Eolmes, landlord of the Warwick Arms, Snow Hill, Birmingham, was summoned for selling beer adulterated with salt. Mr. Neville (instructed by Mr. Ansell) defended. Nr. F. hooker, sanitary inspector, said that on the 21th of August he bought some beer a t the defendant’s house, stating at the time that he was going to have it analysed.He divided it into three parts, OM of which he left at the house, and another he handed to the borough analyst. Dr. Hill, the borough analyst, said he had analysed the beer and found it to contain an excessive quantity of salt-94 grains to the gallon. Such an amount of salt was unnecessary and was injurious, inasmuch as it provoked thirst and incited to drink.Mr. Neville contended that the amount of salt was not excessive, stating that the excise authorities allowed 50 grains. He also urged that as the beer had not been bought by Mr. Booker for conmmption the defendant could not in the words of the Act, be gnilty of selling adulterated beer to the prejudice of the purchaser.He cited a case in which it had been decided that unless the beer was bought for consumption the prosecution must fail. Mr. Lowe said the question they had t:, decide was whether the quantity of salt was excessive. Ninety-four grains did appear to them to be a quantity of salt, which in the direction suggested by the analyst, would be injurious to health, as provoking undue thirst. The objection raised by Mr. Neville they should pass over. They had to deal with the case in a common sense way, and should fine the defendant 20s. and costs. Mr. Neville asked for a case for the superior courts. Mr. Lowe : We are bound to do that if you desire it. Mr. Fitter : There are two or three cases pending now. ANALYSIS OF WINE.-M. Boussingault, director of the laboratory of the Agricultural Institute a t Vincennes, is charged by the Minister of Agriculture to submit to analysis the various types of wines exhibited a t the Exhibition. This investigation will include about ten thousand specimens of wines produced from all the wine-growing countries of the two hemispheres. M. Boussingault will be assisted by his son in this laborious and interesting work.--Brewer’s Glcardian. He mas liable to a fine of $10.