THE ANALYST. 49 LAW 133PORTS. CONDEXSED MILK.--At the Liveiyool Police-court on Wedriesday, 30th January, M1*. Thomas &ith, grocer, 77, Brunswick-road, Liverpool, was summoned for having sold a tin of condensed milk not of the nature and quality demanded. Mi*. Marks, for the prosecution, stated that the only p e o f i a ~ t y about the case was that it was the fir& aumrnons issued relating t o this particular d c l e . A ti^ of condensed milk w a ~ obtained in the usual way, R sample of which was sent to Dr. Oampbell Brown for analysis, who reported that the cream had been removed from the milk before it was condensed, and that the value of the sample was less than half the value af ordinarg condensed milk made from genuine milk. The tin was covered by a labelirpon which was the following :-‘l Guaranteed to be pure cows’ inilk from one of the iichest pasture vales in England, and is highly recommended for invalids and infant$ diet, aa being more wholesome and nutritious than fresh cow’s milk, and especially milk from caws fed in shippons in large towns.This milk is the richest and best, the water having been abstracted and pure loaf sugaradded.” Evidence was then given by Inspector Baker, who proved having purchased two tins of condensed milk from defendant on the 2nd ult., samples of which were sent to the public analyst. Defendant’s assistant told witness that the condensed milk was the best, and was specially made for them. Mr. Segar, barrister, for the defence, said defendant had no personal knowledge of the quality of the milk, but upon the strength of the label sent him by the manufacturers, he placed upon the tin the guarantee referred to.The milk did not contain all the fats to be found in pure milk, but that was held by medioal men to be more beneficial for invalids and infants. He con- tended that condensedmilk waa asked for, and it was supplied, and that there were several kinds of condensed milk man\zfactured.-Mi. Marks said that Mr. Segar could not, however, go beyond the ccrtificato of Dr. Campbell Brown, which stated that the milk in question was only half the value of ordinary condenecd milk. Mr. Raflles, the magistrate, remarked that the difficulty which appearcd to him was that there were scveral kind6 of condensed nzilk, and he certainly should impose n penalty ; but if Mr.Scgar wishoil to take a case upon the difficult point he could do ao. Defendant was fined 20s. and costs, CONDENSED MILK.-MI*. Janiev Lees, grocer, 12, Elliot Street, Liverpool, was summoned on Wednesday, at the instance of the sanitary authorities, for selling adulterated condensed milk. Mr. Barber prosecuted, and MI*. Broadbridge appeared for the defendant. The milk was bought on the 9th ult., and on being analysed it W R ~ found that all the cream had been abstracted before it had been condensed. ‘fie case was similm to the one brought before the court a week ago, and as the milk had been brought before that conviction Mr. RaHes mid he would only inflict a fine of 20s. and costs. Mr. Broadbridge stated that the company which had manufactured the article had issued notices withdrawing all their condensed milk from tho market, in order that fresh labels might be put on the tins.Other grocers were fined for similm offences, CONDXNSED MiLsc.-At Liverpool Police Court, Mr. Charles Lancaeter, grocer, 139, Kirkdule ICoad, Liverpool, wag summoned for aelling 8 tiu of condensed milk, knowu as “ Italian Cirio” brand, which had been deprived of half ita cream before being condensed. A similar fine was imposed on Mr. Thos. Dunbar, grocer, Stanley Road, Liverpool, for selling a can of Condensed milk deprived of the whole of its cream before being condensed. The brand is known its ‘‘ Hooker’s Cream Milk.” CEEAP JAx.-At the Sittingboumo Petty Sessions, on Nonday, bef0r.e F. Locke, -Esq. (chairman), and Major Moore, Mr.George Mallett, grocer, Station Street, Sittingbourne, was summoned under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, for having sold as plum-jam a certain compound, to wit, plum and apple jam, on January 29th. George Coekburn Barringer, one of the constables stationed in Sittingbourne, stated that on the day named, he went to the defendant’s &op and a&ed for a bottle of ‘‘ Steer’s plum-jam.” He was 8ei-i-ed with it, and he afterwards told defendant he would take two more. We paid him 38, for the three, and then handed them to Supeiin- tendent Mayne, who had just come in. Witness told defendant that he had bought the bottles of jam for the purpose of analysis by Dr. Adams, the county analyst. Superintendent Mayne stated that on January 29th, he received three Eottles of jam from tho last witnes8, one of which he now produced.It was labelled He left one bottle with defendant, retained the one which he produced, and hnnded the other to Dr. Adams, the county analyst, at Naidstone, on the following day. Hc had ctince receivcd the certificatp produced from Dr. Adams, which certified that the plum- jam ” cuntaincd 25 per ccnt, of apple. Mr. Strouts then addressed the Bench for the defence, and contended t,h:~t, nH the purchaser aslied for ( ( Stccr’s plun~-jam,” aid wa8 served with ‘ I Steer’s plum-jam,” there A fine of 20s. and costs were imposed. Mr. Strouts appeared for the defendant. Steer’s genuine plum-jam.”5 0 THE ANALYST. ~~ ~- could be no conviction. The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. Tassell) : Then, according to your argment, it would not have mattered if it had been all apple ? Mi..Strouts : It was ‘* Steer’s plum-jam.” The Chairman: No ; it was plum and apple. Nr. Strouts (continuing), went on to say that his client never interfered with the jam in any way ; he bought part of a bankrupt’s stock at the beginnkg of tho present year, and he sold the jam exactly as he received it. H e produced the invoice which accompanied the jam. He contended that the Sale of Food and DmgR Act was never intended to apply to a oase like this, but was intended to deal with cases where there had been adulteration by deleterious and injurious coinpounds. In this case the jam eontained nothing injurious to health. He invited the magistrates to faste the sample in court. The chairman said it was not a question of whether it waB in- juriouR to health.The infoimation was laid-under another section, which he read. The question waN whether the defendant sold plum-jam in accordauce with the demand of the purchaser, or whether he sold a compound. Mr. Strouts said he still maintained that ‘( Steer’s plum-jam ” was supplied. He aupposed the purchase was made by the police because it was known that it had been a bad plum year, and tliere had been scarcely any plums at al1;rtnd that real plum-jam could not be supplied at 4d. per p o d . There had been no fraud shown, nor anything to the detriment of the public or the prejudice of the purchaser, and therefore he asked the Bench to dismiss the case. Besides, even if there had been a technical infringement of the Act, he contended that under Section 25, the defendant was not liabIe, bocauso he was protected by a warranty (produced) from the person from whom he purohased the jam.In reply to the Bench, Superintendent Mayne said this was the first time defendant had been summoned under this Act. Other goods purchased of Mi-. Mallett were found on analysis to be perfectly pure. The Chairman said the magistrates were clearly of opinion that the defendant was liable, and he would bc fined ~ O S . , and 10s. costs. The maximum penalty was $20. The Chairman also intimated that it warJ a question for the defendant to consider whether he had any remedy against the wholesale merchant. The money was at once paid. It transpired during the hearing of the case that several tons of jam imnufactured by Steer, of Maidutone, and labelled precisely in the same manner as were the bottles sold by Mr.Mallett, are held at the present time by tradesmen in Sittingbourne and Milton. REFUSIXG TO SERVE.-AXTJSING CASE,-& the Reailing Borough Bench yederday, before C. Sinith, Esq. (in the chair), and J. fiimonils, Esq., MI*. John Simmonds, landlord of the Little Crown, Southampton Street, was siunmoned for refusing to sell a quantity of gin to Mr. W. H. Roberton, tho duly appointed Inspector of Nuisances, whose duty it also is to obtaiu samples for analysis under the Food and Drugs Act. Mr. Roberton stated that on the 28th of December he went to the defendant’s house and purchased 4d. of gin, which was served him by Nr. Simmonde, he (defendant) placing it in a bottle he handed him.Witness told him he wanted the gin for analysis, and offered to divide it with him. Defendant said he did not under- stand it, and witness repeated the words, and also told him that if he (defendant) doubted the analysis of tho public analyst, the portion he kept, and that he (witness) kept, mould be sent to London. Defendant then add “You have bought it, it is yours.” Witness said “Then you don’t want it divided ? ” Witness then took a label from his pocket, and wrote the name of the landlord and the homo on it. Witness put the bottle on the counter, and Mr. Simmonds left the room, but beturned with Mrs. Simmonds, who took up the bottle and read the label. She said to Mr. Simmonds What is this ? ” and defendant replied ‘‘ I don’t know, but this man is going to do something with the gin.’’ Mrs.Simmonds looked in his bag and said he had not been to any other houses, and what business had be there, adding ‘( You shan’t have the gin.” She had the bottle in her hand, md witness said “Don’t do that, or yoit’ll be breaking tho law.” Mr. Simmonds then asked him what authority he had, adding If you had come in like a man, and told me who you were, and not in this sneaking manner, you would have had tshe gin.” Witness wked him soveral time8 for the gin, but he refused. Witness told him that if he did not give’him the gin, he should call in 8 policeman, but defendant said he could call in whom he liked, he would have no gin there. Witness told 2 h he was appointed by the Sanitary Authority to get samples. Mrs.Simmonds emptied tlie bottle into a glass. Witness called in a policeman.-Cross- examined ; After the gin was emptied out he asked for the gin again. Mrs. Simmonds washed the label off the bottle, handed it back to him, and threw down the fourpence, saying ‘‘ You’ll have no gin here.’’ He was positive he a d d for the gin in the presence of the policeman.-P.C. Jordan corrobo- rated Mr. Roberton as to his asking for the gin, and Mr. and Mrs. Simmonds refusing.-Xi*. Creed, in defence, argued that no offence had been committed. There was a complete sale of the gin, and if any offence had been committed, it was by Nrs. Simmonds, who took unlawful possession of it. If the magistrates were against him, he hoped they would inflict a small penalty.-The Bench said they must convict, but as this was the first offence of the kind that had uomo before tho Reading magietratea they would infiict the nominal pcndty of 10~.and 9s. GcZ. costs. Mr. Simtnoude hid i*cnclercd liimuclf liitblc to ;t fiuc of X1(),--htdiuy O ~ S ~ ) * W I ~ , !hid k’l.L1*11t~y, 1884.51 -- THE ANALYST. --..- - “-- - --_-_--_---_I_I CORK POLIUE 0FFIuE.-(Before Dr. Wycherley, Nessrs. A. M. Mitchell, R.M., and James Ogilvie). Mr. Deyos appeared on behalf of the Corporation to prosecute several persons under the Adultemtion of Food Act (38 and 39 Vict.) for selling adulterated coffee. The first case was against Mr. George O’Brien, 123, Shandon Street, for selling c3ffee adulterated with 37 per cent. chicory. Mr. Deyos produced the certificate from Mr.Burrell, the analyst, stating that the coffee contained 37 per cent. of chicory and other foreign matter, The defendant said he had two assistants in his shop, one of whom attended to the grocery department on this particular day, and having no knowledge of what she was doing, sold the coffee without affixing the label. He always cautioned the young man who attended to write on the paper that it was a mixture. Their Worships decided, on account of the extenuating circumstances, to fine the defendant 2s. 6d., and $1 costa, Mr. Deyos pressecl fQr a larger penalty, but the Courf declined to increase it, The next case was against Nrs. Leslie, 94, Lower Cltmmire Road, for selling coffee adulterated with 50 per cent. of chicory and foreign matter. Mr. A. Julian appeared for the defendant and said that Xrs.Leslie’s establishment till recently had been managed by a son of her’s. The son had ceased to have any connection with the establishment, and Mrs. Leslie was ~ t 6 k old bedridden woman. On the occasion of the visit of the Sanitary Officer there mas no one in the.shop but a little girl. Unless pure coffee was asked for, it was quite common foi shopkeepers to give this mixture, us the small vendors did not mix the coffee, it was supplied to them in this mixed state. He felt certain the Bench were satisfied that there was no intention on the part of Mrs. Leslie to defraud. %r. Deyos, for the Corporation, said he would leave the case in the hands of the Bench, and the course adopted by Mr. Julian would, no doubt, mitigate the offence.He should, however, state that on the day this sample and that from Mr. O’Brien’s were taken, others were also psocured ; but none of these were adulterated. Mr. Ogilvie said that from the first, the Bonch were convinced that there was no intention to defraud in either case. In the last case, in inflicting a fine of 2s. Gd., mid costs, the Bench thought they were satisfying justice. They would impose the same penalty in the other caues. It was not, however, fair to state that coffee and chicory were sold to the small dealers for pure coffee, becauEce it was bought from wholesale dealers in tins, each tin stating that it was a mixture if such was tlic case. ( ( PURE DUTCH Bumm,”-Henry Nicholson, grocer, c_Ctm.Ying’ on business in Manchester Road, was charged with an offence against the Food and ?rugs Ac!.Nr. W. T. McGowen (Town Clerk) proaecuted, and Mr. C. L. Atkinson defended. The Tom Clerk stated that the case had been previously before the Court, when it was adjourned to enable Mr. Atkinmn, on behalf of the defendant, to have the article in respect to which the summons was issued analysed by the Government officials at Somerset House. A sample was aocordingly submitted for analysis, and the report was now before the Court. ‘Mi.. Mossman (Magistrates’ Clerk) read the report, which was signed by Dr. J. Bell, Dr. R. Bannister, and Dr. G. Lewin, certifying that these gentlemen, having aualysed the sample, found the result to be i s follows :--“Water 13.00 per cent.; curd, 1.81 per cent, ; salt, 1.71 per cent.: fat, 83.48 per cent.’, ‘(From a consideration of the results obtained from a full analysis of the fat,” the analysts added, (‘ me are of opinion that the sample is made up almost exclusively of fat which is not that of butter, and which has apparently been worked up with a little milk.” Mr. Atkinson said he should plead guilty to the charge. The analysis received was asked for by his client, and, unfortunately for him, it agreed with the analysis of the local analyst. The Town Clerk : Yes, that is a case of butter without a particle of butter. Mr. Atkinson : The fat has not been found to be of abuttery nature. For thedefence Mr. Atkinson said the defendant was perfectly ignorant that an offence had been committed ; he was, in fact, quite taken aback when he was told that (‘ the butter had been analysed and was found to be butterine.” He had never caused bntter to be analysed, and ‘was perfectly ignorant of what butter was except from its appearance.The article in question was purchased from a respectable dealer in the town, the cask being branded 6‘ Pure Dutch Butter,” and the defendant paid ‘( pure butter ” price for it. The price was ii4d. per pound, the article being retailed at 18. He (Mr. Atkinaon) therefore contended that the defendant had not any intention of defrauding the public; and asked the Bench to take this fact into consideration in regard to tho penalty imposed. The defendant was called and produced an invoice showing that the article was sold to hini as ‘( Pure Dutch Bukter.” The Town Clerk raised an objec- tion, and said the invoice was not A warranty.Mr. Tankard: It is utterly impossible for butter sold at is. per pound to be pure. No butter dealer should ticket an article at that price as butter. YOU can’t get pure butter for 1s. per pound, Mr. Atkinson ; I beg to differ from your Worships. I h o w we can. The Bench imposed a penalty of $5, including costs.52 THE ANAliYST. AT the Manchester City Police Court, William Chadwick, farmer, Donnockshaw Farin, near BunIey- was charged with supplying milk to John Mayall, of Manchester, retailer, showing by analysis 32 per cent. of fat abstracted. Inspector Edward had taken samples from two churns at Victoria Station on January 15th. One was cold, or evening’s milk, and this showed the 38 per. cent. of fat abstraction ; the other was warm, or moiming’s milk, and though it passed the standard of the Society of Public Analysts, it Bhowed 6 per cent.of water added when compared with a, sample taken from defendant’R fifteen cows at the farm by Edward subsequently. Defendant was fined $10 and costs. Ar a Summary Court, Glasgow, on Wednesday, before Sheriff Bdfour, MY. David Wingate, provision dealer, 2, Kirk Street, Cdton, Glasgow, was charged at the instance of the sanitary inspector with having on Jnnuary 9th last sold to two of his officers 1 Ib. weight of butter, which on analysis waB found to contain 9 per cent. of fat other than butter fat ; and he was, after lengthened evidence for the defence, convicted, and fined in the sum of $3. S h e s Bdfour, in his deliverance, pointed out that the prosecu- tion had very clearly shown in their evidence that butterine was furnished to thein for pure butter, which was asked for ; and he emphatically laid down for the guidance of all dealers in butter that when but- terine is exposed for sale the butter memhant should see that it be not only conspicuously labelled but- terine on the butts in which it is contained, but also on the paper wrapper covering.Mr. Ross, of Patterson and Ross, acted for the proseoution : and Mr. Borland, of Messrs. Borlnnd, King) and SLam, for the defence. FOOD ANALYSIB. AXALYSIS OF Foon.-The BIanche&r and Salford Sanitary Association has-e prepared Q memorial for presentation to the Clorporation of Manchester, in which they state that in 1879 they approaohed the Corporation through the Analyst Sub-Committee by a deputation whicli sought a reduction of the charges to citizens for analyses, with a, view to inducing the public to reRort more generally to this method of securing pure supplies of food, &c.The Nuisance Committee have as yet been unable to see their way to make any alteration in the system under which analyses are conducted, The memorialists submit that the present plan of affording facilities for analysis at small fees through the agenoy of the inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act only, is calculated to benefit the co~nmunity to it very limited degree as compared with a system of allowing citizena to employ the analyst direct at small fees, to certify as to. ttlie purity or otheiwise of articles of food or of domestic use suspected of adulteration 01% poisoning. They are of opinion that it is not only desirable in the interests of the public health, but a8 becoming the position of Manchcster, that the city should possess a laboratory of its own, and that the whole time of the analyst, or at least that of one of his qualified assistants, should bc occupied thereat. They ask the Corporation to take steps to proyide a city laboratory, of which the public might avail themselvees at the lowest possible fees. -- - RECENT C!REMICAL PATENTIS. The following specifications lrave been recently published, and c m be obtained from the Great Seal Offic~, Cursitor Btreet, Chancery Lnae, London. KO. Name of Patentee. Title of Patent. Price 1217 J. F. Schnell, A. Haywood, Jun., d- W. Darbyshire Production of Gas, for Illuminating and other pui’poues, from Hydrocarbons, Lc. . , . . . . , , , , 2d, 1296 ,4. S. Brindley &J. Worsnop Apparatus for use in Crushing Sugar-canes, BC. , , , , Gd. 1323 TV. W. Box & G. Waller . . Apparatus used in the Purification of Gas , . , , . , 8 ~ .