12 THE ANALYST. NOTES O F THE MONTH. On November 28th, in the Court of the Queen’s Bench, before Justices Lush and Manisty, as shortly mentioned in our last number, a case was decided which, according to a trade contemporary, (‘ distinctly marks a new departure ” in the law of adulteration. The facts of the case, as stated by the respondent magistrates whose decision was appealed against, were as follows :-A police-constable went into a grocer’s shop and asked for (‘ half-a-pound of coffee,” which was duly taken from a canister, weighed, wrapped up, and delivered across the counter, while the sum of 9d.was charged and paid, such being the price of good coffee at 1s. 6d. per lb. On the constable stating that the article was for analysis, the proprietor came forward, and while the packet waA still on the counter the latter called the constable’s attention to the fact that it was a mixture as indicated by the words printed on the paper, ‘‘ This is sold as a mixture of chicory and coffee.” On analysis the article was found to contain, coffee, 60 parts, and chicory, 40 parts, and the correctness of this result was not disputed by the defendant ; but he relied on the 8th section of the Act, providing that a person selling a mixture may label the same and so be exempt from punishment.The Magistrates, however, held that in the present case the purchaser’s attention had not been called to the label in reasonable time, and moreover they considered that, seeing the purchaser asked for coffee and paid the price of coffee, he should be protected against being served with a mixture which he did not desire, and they therefore convicted the defendant, who now appealed.The Court, after hearing the appealing counsel, and without requiring any reply, unanimously upheld the conviction, and in doing so, Mr. Justice Manisty particularly commented on the fact that coffee was asked for and that the full price of pure coffee was paid for the artide.THE ANALYST.18 The decision, based as it is on principles of fairness and justice, of course gives umbrage to the Grocer, who fights hard for the right of a man to sell an inferior article at the price of the best whenever he can get a chance by sticking on a label, which, in 99 cases out of 100, would never be noticed by the purchaser.How often there must have been a chuckle of quiet delight when this was done (as indeed it is daily), but now the chuckle is changed into a groan of dismay, and the periodical in question waxes wroth, and has a little quiet dig at the analyst whose decision wa6 not disputed and who had done nothing but his simple duty. A long article is devoted to showing how the unfortunate tradesman’s defence is cut from under him, and that the Act was meant to protect him in this style of dealing.How much better would it be if the Grocer encouraged its constituents in business habits, and told them what the law demands, namely, that when a grocer is asked for 6 L half-a-pound of coffee ” he should honestly sell L i half-a-pound of coffee,” and neither dodge his customer by giving short weight or adding chicory.Both in the article and in the letters on the subject published in the Grocer, the real gist of the case is entirely omitted, namely, that cofee was asked for and the full prim ofpur8 co$ee paid, and yet a mixture was sold. Wliat the Court has ruled has no reference whatever to a man who openly sells a mixture as such, but it is that the 8th section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act should be no protection to deliberate attempts at fraudulently supplying a mixture when a pure article is asked and paid for.The great difficulty as to morality is that no one likes to begin to practise it, lest his neighbour over the way should get an advantage. If, however, trades organs would only encourage it a little more, perhaps we may come to the happy day, when, in reply to a demand for 1s.coffee, the salesman will say, Real coffee cannot be sold at less than 1s. 6d., but you will find this 1s. mixture very good.” A little of this straightforward dealing and the public would soon learn the fact, and ask for L L coffee ” or (6 mixed coffee ” according to their means or their taste. Surely it is better to agree to such a course than to spend money on attempts to legally bolster up the right of practising tacit deceit, and it would save the necessity of reading diatribes on analysts and other such pabulum calculated to encourage what is now legally condemned.The great case of the Norwich Baking Powder-which it geems is a mixture of alum and bi-carbonate of soda, has been decided against the manufacturers, and appealed.Our readers who perused the report in our last number will doubtless watch with interest the evidence to be given on appeal. Mr. Sutton was actually, and Dr. Tidy is, it seems, expected to be, called for the defence, both having given certificates that it was quite uninjurious. Supposing an inspector in either of their districts bought some bread, and they, not knowing that this powder had been used in making it, certified to the article containing 118 grains of alum per 4-lb.loaf (which it was stated in court that a loaf made with the article would contain), what an amusing scene might be made in the witness-box when it was proved that the alumina got in through the employment of the very compound they had previously declared perfectly allowable.It is evident that if this appeal succeeds, there is an end to any prosecution for adding alum to bread, as the baker would only need to say he did not use alum, but14 THE ANALYST. Norwich Baking Powder. We think that Public Analysts would be wiser (even at the cost of sometimes losing good fees) to decline giving evidence in any disputed cases, There are plenty of men-not Public Analysts-who would only be too thankful to get employed in such affairs, and the individual action of m y public man would not be thus cramped.If really consistent in their views, then the public in certain districts must be content to eat what is elsewhere deemed undesirable, merely because the analyst has publicly bound himself to an opinion on the subject which might be afterwards used to impair the efficiency of his evidence in official prosecutions.Our readers will note with interest the final decision of Mr. Chance, the magistrate for Lambeth, as to the right of inspectors to demand samples in the street, and we are glad to find he has not adhered to the opinion which we commented upon last month. To look after the milk thus sent out to cudomers, as well as that sold Over the counter, is the only true way of ensuring that the public get what they pay for.NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.-~. Y. Z.-We agree with your remarks as to the imperfection of the publication in question, and have already pointed them out, and we knew that an effort has in conse- quence been made to improve it. We have not space this month for your letter. Dr.SWETE.-OUX matter was all in type before your letter arrived. RECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS. The following specifications have been published dnring the past month, and can be obtained from the Great Seal Office, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, London. Title of Patent. Price 1879. Name of Patentee. NO. 1592 W. Miiller . . . . . . . . 1622 1635 1661 1673 1698 1703 1705 1733 1783 1791 1692 1949 1795 1808 1842 1855 1865 1869 1970 2652 4103 R.C . Thompson . . . . . . J. MacKenzie . . . . . . J. C. Mewburn . . . . . . J. J. Sachs.. . . . . . . H. A. Bonneville . . . . . . J. Townsend . . . . . . A. Steenberg . . . . . . R. S. Ripley . . . . . . F. C. Glaser . . . . . . J. S. Sellon and H. Edmonds . . Ditto . . . . . . .. Ditto . . . . . . . . A. M. Clark . . . . . . H. J. Haddan . . . . . . W. R. Lake . . . . . . J. B. Spence . . . . . . H. Parkes . . . . . . . . A. Scott and T. R. Ogilvie . . J. Fordred . . . . . . . . C. W. Siemena . . . . . . W. MorganBrown . . . . Manufacture of Ammonia from Nitrogen of Atmospheric Air and Hydrogen . . . . . . Producing Electric Light . . . . . . Electric Light Apparatus .. . . . . Preparation of Starch and Dextrine . . Extraction of Fatty Matters . . . . Dephosphorization of Iron . . . . . . Obtaining Soda and Potash . . . . Manure . . . . . . . . . . Treating Illuminating Gas . . . . . . Manufacture of Sugar . . . . . . Electric Lamps . . . . . . . . Regulating Electric Currents . . . . Apparatus for Generating Electric Currents Safety Cheque .. . . . . . . Gas Governors . . . . . . . . Machinery for Crushing Phosphates . . Treatment of Metallic Sulphides . . . . Manufacture of Compou‘nds of Nitro-Cellulose . . Purifying Saccharine Substances . . . . . . Treatment and Purification of Cod Liver Oil . . Electric Lamps . . . . . . . . . . Electric Batteries . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. - .. 6d. .. 2d. .. 6d. .. 4d. .. 2d. .. 4d. .. 4d. .. 2d. .. 6d. .. 4d. .. 2d. .. 6d. .. 2d. .. 2d. .. 4d. .. 4d. *. 4d. .. 4d. .. 4d. .. 2d. .. 6d. .. 4a. BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. Annals of Chemical Medicine, by Dr. Thudichum ; How to use a Galvanic Battery, by Dr. Tibbitts ; Water Works for Cities and Towns, by S. Hughes; Blowpipe Analysis, by Landauer; A Year’s Cookery ; The Chemist and Druggist ; The Brewers’ Guardian; The British Medical Journal ; The Medical Press ; The Pharmaceutical Journal ; The Sanitary Record ; The Miller ; Journal of Applied Science; The Boston Journal of Chemistry; The Provisioner ; The American Dairyman ; The Practitioner ; American New Remedies ; Proceedings of the American Chemical Society ; Le Praticien ; The Inventors’ Record ; New York Public Health ; Philadelphia Printers’ Circular ; The Scientific American ; The American Traveller.