210 THE ANUYST. LAW REPORTS. tnasket gardener and milk vendor, of Leighton Buzzard, again appeared to adjourned surnmonq charged with having sold to Supt. Shepherd, on the 318t of July, milk which was alleged to have been adulterated with 12 per cent. of water and deficient in butter-fat to the extent of 20 per cent. This was the t k d time this case had been before the court. On the h t occasion the defendant challenged the certificate of Dr. Stevenson, of Guy’s Hospital, London, the county analyst ; on the second he produced a certifi- cate from 36esm. Wigner and Hmland, of London, who, after. analysis, stated that a portion of the mmple of milk taken from defendant contained s/10 per cent. more of butter-fat than the limit laid down by the Society of Analysts, though they added that it was cliflicult to say whether or not the milk had been watered, owing to its decomposition when analysed.Under these oircumstances the mse fvas referrod to Somerset House, .and 8 portion of the sample forwarded thither for final analysis. A cefifi- cattsfrom Somerset House was now produced by Supt. Shepherd, and read by the Chairman, as follows :- ‘‘ Laboratory, bcSomerset House, W.C. ‘ 6 The sample of milk referred to in the annexed memorandum, and marked Bedfordshire, 11-9, wag received here on the 17th inst. The bottle was securely sealed. We hereby certify that we have analyaed the milk, and declare the results of our analysis to be as f0llow.g :-Non-fatty solids, 7.65 per cent.; fat, 2.59 ; water, 89.76; ash, ‘i3. From a consideration of these results, and after making for natural loss arising from the decomposition of the matter through a period of fi% dayfi, we are unable to a m that water has been added to or cream abstracted from the milk.DISPUTZD MILK CASE, “ ALLOWANCE FOn DECOXPOSIFION ” NOT HOLDING Goon-Thomas E&etou, 46As witnas our hands this 27th day of September, 1884. (‘ R, BANHSTEH. (‘ G. LRWIN.” Dr. Stevenson, now called to pemonally support his certificate, said he was public analyst for the county of Bedford. On July 31st last he received three samples of milk from Supt. Shepherd, numbered ll-& 11-9, 11-10. The bottle’mark 11-9 was now produced. After analysing the milk therein he gave the ce~fimte before tho court, whioh ma6 correct aooount of the &ual~ds and hb opinion therbon. HdTHE ANALYST.211 made two analyses, and they agreed very closely. He was assisted in the analysis, but supervised the whole process. On Soptember 18th the defendant came to his laboratory, and was shown the bottle marked 11-9, as it remained after the analysis. He said he had been summoned, and suggested that a mistake had boen mado, Witness said he would analyso the milk again. He made two new analyses from the milk left, and fromthe result he found that he could have made no mistake, and that hi8 cer- tificate was a correct one. T h mean percentage of fat should be from 32 to 3+ per oent., but this sample wae deficient to tho oxtent of 20 per cent. On the 22nd of September defendant brought witness another sample of milk. He said it was from the same cows as the original milk had been taken, and that the cows were being fed in the same manner as in July, and that the sample was a fair one of the wholo yield of tho cows.Witness analysed that milk, and found it of very nearly the average quality. By adding 9# per cent, of water to the last sample, and taking away 23i per cent. of fat, the two aamples would be brought together in quality. His conclusion was that the deficiency of fat in the original sample was not natural. Cross-examined by Mr. Grayson, witness said he was appointed analyst for Che ooiinty of Bedford in 1872. He made 400 or 600 milk analyses in the course of a year. He was present and took part in the analysis. He employed assistants. He had paid a deal of attention to milk analysk He was quite certain that his figures was correct, and had kept a record of them.Milk varied occasionally in quality according to the cows. It contained 87 to 88 per cent. of water naturally, and when it became decomposed it did not give such a good result. In a decomposed state the percentage would not inorease more than about 4 per cent. It might get up to 90 per cent. if very much decomgosod, Milk containing 10*GO 01 solids would not be consistent with genuine milk, with no water added, if a cow was milked under abnomd circumstances. Mr. Grayson here quoted from Dr. Tidy, who had, boforo a Select Committee of the House of Commons, drawn the line at, 10 per cent. of total solids, and wouId not say that a sample of milk containing that quantity was adulterated : but Dr.Stevenson would not say that he agreed with Dr. Tidy-he would not rest his opinion upon such figures. He did not know that the standard was once higher, and that the analysts, finding out that they were doing an injustice to honest men, had to give up the standard of their own creation. Mr. Haslam inquired if 10 per cent. was the Government standard. Mr. Grayson said there was nostandard, but the defendant’s milk was per cent, in fat higher than the standard allowed by the Society of Public Analysts. Dr. Stevenson said he belonged to the society, and must correct, a misapprehension. It was not yl0 per cent. above the standard, but above the limit allowed by the society. l?urther eross- examined, Dr. Stevenson added that defendant’s was poor milk, and he thought no analyst would have difficulty in discovering that fact.His analysis had been made under more favourable circumstances than that of Messrs. Wigner and Harland. Had theirs been made earlier, it would have been more favourablo to the defendant in some pai*ticulars. The Somerset House analysis convinced him that he had analyscd the same milk. Witness had in his experience made mistakes-two, he believed. No analyst would be human if he was not sometimes in error, but in the two cases t o which he referred he had made further inquiry, and, having satisfied himself, admitted the mistakes, which, however, were not in analysis, but in numbering. Good milk ought to contain twelve per cent. of solids, and he should be very suspicious of any below 11+ per cent.Mi. Grayson in defence, said he did not think there would be any difficulty in the Bench coming to the conclusion that this was genuine milk. There had been no complaint against it on the part of the public, and he thought it a very serious thing that the machinery of the Act should be put in motion again& the defendant. In the absence of complaint there had been no reason t o analyse this milk at all. The Superintendent of police, in the course he had taken, ought to be supposed to have some reason for suspicion. The chairman said that was not so. The Superintendent periodically submitted for analysis almost everybody’s goods. Xr. Grayson said that two years ago defendant’s milk had been tried and found genuine. Since that time he had been specially careful ; he had not watered his milk, and no complaint had been made res- pecting it.On the last occasion that this case was before the court Messrs. Wigner and HarIand’s certificate left a doubt ; and now the Somerset House certificate did not say the milk had been watered; and this ldAar certificate, he ctontended, entitled the Benoh to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. He rested his defence upon these two latter certificates. Had there been adulteration, it could have been easily ascertained. He believed he was defending an honest man, who had sold an honest article. They had now two cerlifioates one way, t o one the other, and he considered it a cruel hardship to summon this man without came, beside which he did not think that Dr. Stevenson had given his evidence in a straightforward manner.The Chairman, who had during the cross-examination of Dr. Stevenson requested Mr. Grayson to alIow the doctor to finish his sentences before putting furher questions, hero said the Bench did not agree with the remark that evidence had not been given straightforwardly. Nr. Grayson said he would give way, but he was puzzled t o know212 THE ANALYST. how the defioiency of fat and excess of water had been ascertajned. The Nagistrates now retired to oonsult together, and on returning into Court the Chairman said the Bench had given careful attention to this oase, and they felt that it was not without its difficulties. In coming to a decision they had taken the most favourable view of the defendant’s circumstances. At the mme time, they had carefully prepared a table of the three analyses, and did not find the great discrepancies which the gentleman engaged for the defence endeavoured to draw attention to.Dr. Stevenson reported 10.60 per cent. of solids ; Messrs. Wigner and Harland, 10.34 per cent. ; and Somerset House, 10.24 per cent. It would be observed that the solids of Messrs. Wigner and Harland and of Somemet House were slightly less than those of their own analyst, but that might be amounted for by the deterioration in the milk. Again, in the two other things that went to make up the total, the analysts’ reports were pretty well agreed. Dr. Stevenson said there were 2‘46 of fatty and 8’14 of non-fatty matter ; Messrs. Wiper and Harland put the fatty matter at 2-71 and the non-fatty at 7-63 ; and Somerset House gave the fatty at 2.59 and the non-fatty at 7.65.Dr. Stevenson said 89.40, Messrs. Wiper and Harland 89-66, and Somerset House SS*7S. All the principal figures agreed, as did also the decimals to a very considerable extent, Somerset House giving rather more water and less solids than the other reports. With regard to Messrs. Wiper and Harland’s concluding remarks, the Bench did not see much more than a negative opinion; and the analysts of Somerset House said that after the length of time that had elapsed, they were unable to affirm that water had been added or cream abstracted. They did not affirm that they had not. Under all these ciroumstances, and considering that the superintendent had only done his duty in the matter, and had not attempted to be h a d or harsh, and taking into consideration the serious importance of the case to the defendant, they had decided to deal with the case lightly.A fine must be inflicted, but as small as possible. The ex- penses amounted to very nearly $1, and the defendant would have to pay $1, including costs. ANOTHER CASE INvoLVmct ‘‘ ALLOWANCE FOB DEcom?osITsox.”--Joseph Pickering, a milk dealer, of 68, Lockton Street, Bow, appeared to answer an adjourned summons taken out against him at the instance of William Talbot Harrison, one of the Sanitary Inspeotors to the Poplar Board of Works, for selling as pure, milk which had been adulterated to the extent of thirteen per cent. with water. Mr. Famifield appeared to prosecute. The case, which possessed some very remarkable features, has already been twice before the Court.On tlie first occasion the certificate of Mr, Young, the analyst to the B o d , was put in, and that stated that the milk was adulterated with water to the extent named. The defendant, however, denied that there was any adulteration, and produced a certificate which he said he had received from Professor Redwood, setting forth that the milk was pure. The case was then adjournedfor the attendance of the professor; but when it came up on the following week, the defendant said that he had not been able tosecure the professor, as he was out of town, but that he (the defendant) should like the third sample of milk, which is generally retained in case suoh a demand is made, to be submitted to the Government analyst at Somerset House.This was accordingly done, the summons meanwhile being adjourned sane dbe. When the case now came on, Mr. Lushington said that since the last adjournment he had received a certificate from Somerset House, aigned “Riohard Bannister” and (‘ G. LeWin,” whioh stated that they had submitted the sample of milk sent them to analysis, and from a consideration of the results thereof-not losing sight of the time the milk had been kept before it was forwarded for analysis-they {the signatories) could not affirm that any water had been added. Under these circumstances, he (Nr. Lushington)‘shodd dismiss the summons. Each party would have to pay 5s. 3d. towards the expense of the Somerset House analysis. The defendant asked for his own expenses, but his worship declined to grant them. BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. Then as to water. The Chemist and Druggist ; The Brewers’ Guardian ; The British Nedioal Journal : The Pharma- ceutical Journal ; The Sanitary Record ; The Miller ; The Provisioner ; The Practitioner ; New Remedies ; Proceedings of the American Chemical Society ; The Inventors’ Record ; New Sork Publio Health ; The Scientific American ; Society of Arts Journal ; Sanitary Engineer of New Pork ; Cowkeeper and Dairyman’s Journal ; Sugar Cane ; Country Brewers’ Gazette ; The Hedical Record ; The Grocers’ Gazette ; London Water Supply, by Crookes, Odling and Tidy ; Chemical Review ; Independent Oil and Drug Journal and Paint Review ; Science Monthly ; Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry. NOTICE TO O m READERS AND cONTRIBUTORS.-I?3 future law reports will not be insertedin the ANALYST, unless some really novel point of procedure, or roference under the Act is involved. Our confreres are earnestly requested t o send us cuttings from local journals whenever siich cases occur, but not otherwise.