THE ANALYST. 35 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Size of Sample. (From tlic 6 6 Plmwanceziticnl Jownnl ” of December 23, 1905.) ON Thursday, December 20, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Lawrance, and RIr. Justice Ridley, Mary Lowery, of the Stanley Hotel, Hoylake, appealed against a conviction under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts for selling brandy alleged to be adulterated. Mr. PICKFORD, for the appellant, contended that the sample taken should be divided into three equal parts, so that each should offer equal facilities for analysis. There was no authority directly in point. He submitted that it was a condition precedent to a prosecution under the Act that the samples taken should be equal. Mr. BANKES said this case was of importance, because in practice it would almost always be absolutely impossible to divide the samples equally as suggested. There was nothing in the section which defined the sizes of the samples to be taken.The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in giving judgment, said the point taken in this case was one of great and general importance-namely, ay or no, was it an objection to a conviction under the section that the samples taken were not equally sufficient for the purpose of enabling 8 satisfactory analysis to be made. He had come to the conclusion that, although the parts taken need not be exactly equal, at least each must be sufficient for the subsequent purposes contemplated by the Act-namely, that of examination by the public analyst, by any other analyst select.ed by the person accused, and also by the Government analyst if the justices exercised their power to send it to hiill under Section 22 of the Act, as they had done in this case. Here they found that the samples were not sufficient, for the public analyst, called as a witness for the prosecution, had stated that he would not be able to get a satisfactory analysis from any sample weighing less than 4 ounces. Therefore the conviction must be quashed, with costs. Mr. JUSTICE LAWRANCE and Mr. JUSTICE RIDLEY concurred.