THE ANALYST. 165 LAW REPORTS. (BEFORE MR. JUSTICE FRY.) THE ATTORNEY-GENBItAL '0. THE GAS LJGHT AND COHE COMPANY. This was an information a t the relation of the West Ham Local Board to restrain the Gas Light and Coke Company from carrying on business at their works a t Canning Town so as to cause a public nuisance. The nuisance complained of arose from the discharge of sulphuretted hydrogen from gas lime during the process of moving it.The defendants did not deny the nuisance, but they raised a defence which amounted to a claim to a statutory power to commit the nuisance. They alleged that under their own Acts and the various Metropditaii Gas Acts, and the requisitions of the referees appointed undor those Acts, they are bound to produce gas of a certain degree of purity with reference to sulphur compounds ; that they are bound to eliminate from the gas they supply to the metropolis sulphur compounds to such an extent as to render it practically impossible for them to carry on their works without discharging the noxious gas complained of.The hearing of the action has occupied nearly three days ; many witnesses (chiefly scientific) have been examined; and the tiny, dark court has been crammed; consequently, notwithstanding the utmost endeavours to procure proper ventilation, the sanitary conditions of the court have been most unfavourable.Fortunately it was a case in which it was not necessary to exclude the witnesses (not actually under examination) and turn them out i n the rain. Mr. Kay, Q.C., Mr. Aston, Q.C., Mr.Bardswell, and Mr. R. F,. Webster appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Bcnjamin, Q.C., Mr. Davey, Q.C., Mr. A. L. Smith, and Alr. Hornell for the defendants. Mr. Justice Fry said that the evidence established that for a great part of the period during which the nuisance was complained of a large part of the noxious vapour was due to the shovelling and disturbance of gas-lime which the defendants had taken to their BromIey works from their two other gasworks.Dr. Odling, one of the defendant's own witnesses, estimated the proportion at one-half ; the defendants would have no statutory justification for this proceeding, and the plaiotiff would be entitled to an injunction on this grouild. His Lordship, i n construiug the various Acts of Parliament which had been referred to gave his opinion that the liability of the company in respect of nuisance was exprcssly kept on foot.But, apart from that consideration, he thought the defendants had not shown that they had adopted all the means in their power to prevent the nuisance. The referees, officers appointed under the Gas Acts, had in the discharge of their duties fixed a standard of purity, such that, in their opinion, the gns companies, in the present state of gas engineering, could practically attain without the necessity of injuring any one ; and therefore there rested on the defendants the burden of showing that they had adopted t h e best means of preventing the nuisance.In his opinion they had failed to discharge that burden, and an injunction166 THE ANALYST.~ must be granted, not merely limited to the foreign lime from other works. A period of three months’ grace was allowed to enable the Gas Company to devise better means of taking their used-up lime from the purifiers and to remove it.-Tiilizcs. ~IEAJIY I’m-kLTY FOR IXrPumrrr IN GAS.-& Worship Street, the Commercial Gas COtnpany, of Stepney, appeared to an adjourned summons requiring them to show cause why a warrant of distress should not be iFsued to recover the sum of $400, being eight pcnalties of f 5 0 each, for having on eight days supplied gas of a less purity than allowed by the Act of the Company.Mr. ,Resley, instructed by Mr. spencer, appeared on behalf of the Board of Works to support the summonses ; Mr. Rced appeared for the Company.Mr. Besley said that he appeared to ask the magistrate to issue a warrant of distre,ss against the Company for the recovery of eight penalties of 250 each, for Ivhich they were liable under the Act of Parliament 38 and 39 Vic., cap. 200 (the private Act of the Company), I n this case the defendant Company had on the 15th, 17th, lSth, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 24th days of September last, supplied gas of less purity than allowed by the Act of Parliament.The quality of the gas supplied was determined by officers called gas referees, who from time to time fixed the ~naximzcm of impurity at which gas was to he supplied. In this case the impurity complained of was an excess of ammonia over that which the referees had fixed as the maximzcnz. The fact was known to the defendant Company from the report of the examiner.They had not appealed to the chief gas examiner, and the penalties were, therefore, recoverable against them by distress warrant. Mr. Besley also pointed out that the Act gave the magistrate no power to mitigate the penalities, and added that the question had arisen whether the issuing the warrant of distress was not really an ex parte proceeding in which the Company were not entitled to be heard. A clerk from the office of the Metropolitan Board of Works then proved that Mr.Edmin Adenbrook was the appointed gas examiner at the Parnell road testing-house of the Commercial Gas Company. Rlr. Adenbrook proved testing the gas supplied through the testing-house from the works of the defendant Company, and produced his certificates of such testing, Mr.Charles Fry, principal assistant in the Solicitoi’s Department of the Metropolitan Board of Works, produced thc certificate of the gas referees appointing the quality of the gas to be supplied. From this it appeared that the viaximwn of ammonia allowed was 20.5 grains per 100 cubic feet. Mr. Hannay examined the certificates of the gas examiner, and said there were some four, some five, and some three in exccss.Mr. Keed cross-examined the witness Adenbrook, who said that the testing extended over 20 hours, as required by the Act. Ire had supplied a copy of the certificates to the Secretary of the Company, and by courtesy, one to the Engineer. In the latter he had marked the excess of ammonia by underlining the figures, and he considered that sufficient notice.For the defence, Mr. Reed said he should have to make an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, the Company’s Works being out of the jurisdictim. Mr. Hannay overruled the objection, Mr. Besley pointing out that the testing station where the offences werc shown was within the district of the court. Mr. Xeed took a further objection, that the notice given to the Company was insuificient under the Act, but this was also overruled. Mr.Hannay said that upon the facts proved, he could only order the warrant to issue for the penalties claimed, &loo. -Times. ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE AN ANALYsT.-Benjamin Hirkham, dairyman, 26, Charlotte street, Blackfriars Road, was summoned before Mr. Partridge by the sanitary inspector of’ St.Saviour’s Board of TVorks, for selling milk adulterated to the extent of 12 per cent. of water. Mr. Simpson, Vestry Clerk, prosecuted. Mr. Errington proved the purchase of the milk on Monday the 5th, and taking a sample to Dr. Eernays, of St. Thomas’ Hospital, for analysis. Dr. Bernays said that soon after the sample mas left with him in a sealed bottIe by last witness, defendant came into the laboratory and said it was not a fair sample of his milk, and, thrusting a half-sovereign into his hand, asked him to make a favourable analysis.Witness threw the coin away and told him he should analyse i t in the usual way. Witness afterwards analysed it and found it to be adulterated with 1 2 per cent of water. The defendant said he was ill a t the time and left the charge of the milk to his man.As for the half-sovertign lie tendered it to Dr. Bernays for the trouble he had put him to on previous occasions. Mr. Errington mas recalled, and, in answer to Nr. Simpson, said that the defendant was fined 6;5 in 1875. Charles Hill, 9, Little Charlotte Street, and Thomas Bevan, Nelson Square, dairynxn, were each fined 40s.and costs for a similar offence.-Tiiizes. ADULTERATED IIoNEY.-At the Central Police Court before Mr. Gemmel, Stipendiary. Malcolm Campbell, grocer, 89, George Street, was charged under the Adulteration Act 1875, section 6, with having, on the 22nd August, sold to Alexander Johnston Walker, Food Inspector of the Sanitary Department, three jars of honey, which were not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded.Campbell pleaded not guilty, and evidence was led, Mr. Walker stating that on the day in question he saw in the window of defendant’s shop a ticket setting forth that pure comb honey was sold in jars. He entered the shop and bought three of the jars paying 94d. each for them. Campbell was then told that they would be analysed, and Walker offered to leave a portion of it with him.Campbell declined to receive it, and JITalker sealed up the sample, which was sent to Dr. Clarke for analysis. Dr. Clarke stated that he had analgsed the satuple, and found it contained 57 per cent. of glucose, a preparation from starch. Campbell said in l l r , Partridge fined the defendant $10 and costs.THE ANALYST. 167 defence that the honey was sent to him warranted to be genuine American honey, and he believed it to be so.The Stipendiary, however, found the charge proven, and imposed a penalty of 62 with the alternative of 7 days’ imprisonment.-Glasggow Evening Citizefi. HEAVY PENALTY FOR MILK ADULTERATION -John Adams, farmer and milk contractor, Southall, who supplied milk to the St. Marylebone parochial schools, was summoned before the Brentford magibtrates, for selling adulterated milk. Of two samples of milk obtained from the defendant’s cart, one was certified by Dr.Redmod to contain 19 per cent. of added water, and the other 16 per cent. Mr. John Paton, superintendent of the schools, statcd that the defendant had held the contract for the milk supply for four or five years.The consumption amounted to about 160 gallons per week, and the defendant’s account reached the large sum of 6900, or 21,000 per year. By the terms of his contract he was bound to supply ‘*good, genuine, unadulterated, new milk from the cow.” and the witness had written to him two or three times calling his attention to the qualitF. The chairman (Mr. Glossop) said the case was abad one, because the milk was intended fur children, many of whom wcre weakly and scrofulous, and to whom a good milk diet was essential.Therefore this adulteration was very wicked, and the magidrates had decided to impose a fine of &20, and &2, costs. ADT LTEBATION OF GIN.- At Lanchester Petty Sessions: Joseph TOWIIS, innkeeper, was summoned for selling adulterated giu The magistrates were Mr.Fawcett (chairman), Mr. E. T. Smith, Mr. Clavering, and the Rev. J. P. De Pled‘ge. Superintendent Oliver, the inspector, said, or1 the 18th August, he called a t Mr. Town’s house and obtained a pint of gin, which he divided into three parts, one he sent to Mr. Edgar, the county analyst, whose certificate he now produced, showing that the gin was 30 per cent.under proof. Mr. Granger of Durham, who appeared for the defence, said he did not dispute that the gin was 30 per cent. under proof. The question for the magistrates to decide was whether this was an adul- teration within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Town, the defendant was called, and said the gin which he sold was not reduced in strength. I I e got i t from Mr. Greenwell, and received an excise permit Kith it, Mr.Greenwell, on being called, said he had been in the wine trade 36 years, and during the whole of that time he had been in the habit of selling gin a t 30 per cent. under proof, which he considered a very good strength. Mr. Greenwell: From 17 to 22 under proof. W e never buy any stronger than 22. H e comidered that gin 22 under proof was better than 17 under proof.Mr. Hearn, Supervisor of Excise, Durham, said he had been connected with the trade upwards of 20 years, having been in it a t Liverpool, Dublin and London. He considered 30 per cent. under proof was a fair saleable article. The Chairman: Suppose you asked for a glass of gin nhat strength mould you expect to get it?-Mr. Hearn said he should not expect to get it any lower than 30.The Chairman: You consider 30 per cent. under proof is a good eomniercial article ? Mr. Wilson : Yes. The magistrates then retired. On their return, Mr. Clavering said they had decided to convict. Defendant was fined 10s. and costs. The Chairman said : Because the decision has not come from the chair, it will naturally be supposed that I disagree with the other magistrates.I am sorry to disagree with my brother magistrates a t any time, but I do not agree with them in the present judgment, Mr. De Pledge: What is gin geneially mede a t ? Mr. Plimsoll, 11 P., was present a t a temperance meeting at Derby last month, and in the course of his remarks said,--“ I have long held the opinion that a great deal of the crime which is attributed to intoxica- tion in this country is not so much owing to the quantity of drink which the criminal has consumed as to the abominable adulteration by which the drink has been treated before it was sold to him.There are certain classes of people in London, I am informed-certain classss of tradesmen who are called publicans’ chemists, who sell articles by which the spirits which they receive from the distilleries are adulterated, to the great injury of the people who consume them, and it is impossible to see the almost total absence of intoxication which you may see on the Continent, where every one drinks the light wines of the country, without being convinced that the poople are intoxicated-which means poisoned, as distinct from inebriated which means drunk-that they are hero intoxicated or poisoned by the drink they get a t some of the public houses in the country.Aa to spirits I know very little, but I do happen to know that salt is used very strongly by common brewers in the country with the distinct purpose-I speak deliberately because I speak of things I know-with the distinct object of making the people who drink the beer thirsty.I have known a case in which a large load of salt, some 70 or 80 tons, was taken to a large brewery in one town in the Midland Counties, and if that is the case i t is a frightful fraud and a wicked sin ; and if a person drinks a pint or half a pint of ale in a reasonable manner, to satisfy thirst, and he or she finds him or herself a short time afterwards as thirsty as before, if they are unwilling to take water, as we know they are, they must drink again or bear the thirst.I felt this so strongly that when the Act of 1872 was before the House of Commons I obtained a scheh.de of the things prohibited to be used in the manufacture of liquor, and it may be instructive to this meeting to know what Parliament did prohibit in that schedule. I n Committee, I strove, and strove hard, to have the use of salt in breweries prohibited along with the use of other things, but I was resistcd verj stoutly indeed by soiiie members of‘ Parliarueilt who mere interested in brewing, not by my colleague, and they I think it is a wicked thing which it is impossible should be allowed.168 THE ANALYST. declared over and over again that it was not used, and the divisions that a e r e taken were carried against me.But in the coursc of the debate they had contcnded that it was not used, and when the Bill came up for third reading I put it that if they did not use it, the prohibition of its use couId do them no harm, and I moved for the recommittal of the Bill, and had this matter put in as a prohibited article. A very short time after that, however, a, deputation of brewers waited on the gome Secretary, who had power to vary the schedule, and though i t wns stated in the Housc of Commons over and over again that salt was not uwd, their appeal to the I-Iomc Secretary was, that beer mould not kcep without salt was used, and they succeeded in obtaining sanction for its use in limited quantities.I always like to speak from the book, and so I went to the Housc of Commons’ librsry to see if I could find the Order of Council author- iziog this, but the library was colt1 and I was warm, and I could not stag long enough to fin6 out whether it was authorized or not, so I cannot say ; but in the 37th and 38th Victoria, cap.48, sec. 33, passed two ycars afterwards, the whole of the four clauses on the Bill of 1872 making adulteraticn criminal, and providing for tlte punishment of those whu had adulterated, and the schedule of things prohibited were all repealed by the Goveriiment which is now in power.I t will give you an idea of somc of the things that are used if‘ I read to you the schediile of the things prohibited, and which x-e may, therefore, assume were used, for I don’t sulqiose Parliament, or the Government, would prohibit these things u3lcss they had good reason for knowing they were used. In the 35th and 36th Victoria the following tliiiqs are mcntimed:- ‘ Cocculus indicus, darnel seed, chloridc of sodium ’ which is, of CcIme, common salt--‘ coppcras, opium, strychnine, tobacco, extract of logwood, sulphate of zinc or lead, nnd alum, or any extract or compound of the above ingredients,’ these were the things prohibited. I f any one is fond of his glass and thinks i t does him good, I would have him bcar that list in mind. I think the temperance societies might possibly- I subniit the suggestion with much defcrence-do some good if they were to try to obtaiv an authoritative exposition of some of those things, and if they cannot secure the punishment of those who use them they may a t least secure their exposure.”-Times.