摘要:

THE ANALYST. 167 LAW REPORT.-COURT OF APPEAL. BIGSBY 9. DICEINSON. THIS was an action for the suppression of a nuisance alleged to have been caused by the defendant in the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia and anthracene, and as itpossesses some points of interest to chemists, we give a condensed report of it. The Defendant, Dickinson, manufactures sulphate of ammonia and an thracene in Deptford.The Plaintiff, and other persons, having complained that in so doing he created a nuisance, the local authorities, last year, took summary proceedings before- the Police Magistrates to compel an abatement of the nuisance. After hearing the case, it was dismissed on a technical objection, that sulphate of ammonia being the product of a mineral ” its manufacture was exempt from the usual liabilities to prevent nuisance.The Plaintiff, Bigsby, then applied for, and obtained, two interim injunctions, but on a full hearing, extending over sight days, before Vice Chancellor Bacon, the Bill was dismissed. The Plaintiff appealed, and the case was heard in the Court of Appeal, before Lords Justices James, Baggallay, and Bramwell, the hearing extending over five days. The Plaintiff’s case was, in effect, that he and his family, at intervals, suffered seriously by the fumes of sulphuretted hydrogen, which were emitted from the Defendant’s works, and the evidence of some of the witnesses went to prove that at times certain irritating vapours, of other character, were also evolred. The Defendant’s case was that the nuisance had been greatly exaggerated; that it might have been caused by other factories, and, that the Plaintiff himself, being a varnish maker, would produce large quantities of sulphuretted hydrogen, which WouLd produce the effects of which he complained.For the Plaintiff numerous witnesses were called, who proved the existence of a serious nuisance, and some of these witnesses actually swore that they were able to trace it to the Defendant’s works.For the Defendant, the general purport of the evidence was that the works were 4 ‘ perfect,” and that, except by gross carelessness or wilful negligence, no such nuisance as that complaimed of could possibly be produced. On the appeal the Plaintiff applied for, and obtained, leave (which had been previously refused by the Vice Chancellor) to prove that the materials which he used did not, and in fact could not, produce a sulphuretted hydrogen, and proved this fact to the Batisfaction of the three Judges.Their Lordships gave separate judgments, all, however, being in favour of the Plaintiff. That the existence of a serious nuisance arising from sulphuretted hydrogen had been proved. That this nuisance occurred at interrals only, and then mostly a t night, when the fires for consuming the waste gas from the Defendant’s saturators were likely to be out.That in some cases the noxious fumes had been clearly traced to the Defendant’s works, and finally, that the defence of ‘‘ perfect” works only could be of no avail, because the testimony of a few witnesses, who had smelt the offensive odours, was necessarily of more value than the evidence of hundreds of witnesses who had failed to do so.The judgment of the Court below was, therefore, reversed, and an injunction given in the terms of the Plaintiff’s Bill. The Analysts engaged in the case were for the PlaintiE, Mr. Heisch, the late Dr. Letheby, Dr, Voelcker, Messrs. Wigner and Wanklyn. For the Defendant, Messrs.Campbell, Manning, Tribe, and Dr. Wright. The case will form a valuable precedent for the future suppression of such nuisancesp The decisions may be summarized as follows :- That the nuisance did not arise from the Plaintiff’s own works.168 THE ANALYST . XECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS . THE following specifications have been published during the current month. and can be obtained from the Great Seal Office.Southampton Row. Chancery Lane. London . No . 656 670 708 854 858 903 1003 1068 1106 1121 1157 1172 1194 1196 1229 1278 1293 1355 1368 1541 1552 1567 1596 1597 1682 1704 1706 1714 - Name of Patentee . E . Hunkler . . . . . . . . . J . Firth . . . . . . . . . N . C . Cookson S . G . Thomas . . . . . . M . H . Strong Cammack & Walker . . . . .. L . T . Wright H . E . Newton . . . . . . C . T . Ashmore C . Muratori . . . . . . . . . S . S . Lewis ... Archbold Cooper & Wtkklyi" W . R . Lake . . . . . . . . . A . M . Clark . . . . . . . . . J . H . Johnson C . Reimer . . . . . . E . P . H . Vau&an . . . . . . F . Hills . . . . . . . . . J . Riley . . . . . . . . . H . E . Newton . . . . . . . J . Fleming . . . .. . . . . E . Oliver . . . . . . . . J . Hooker . . . . . . . . . J . Hooker . . . . . . . . . . H . 1; . Jones . . . . . . . . . B . Fixsen . . . . . . . . . D . U . Lowber . . . . . . A . Blake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...Title of Patent . Varnish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . White Lead" . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacture of Gas Manufacture of Sulphates'b'f Sod; &nd P&h Dyeing . . . . . . . . . . . . Roasting and amalgamating Ores ... Revivifying Foul Gas Lime . . . . . . Colours used in ornamenting Glass Baking Powder . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacture of Paints . . . . . . . . . Soap .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distilling Spirits . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacture of Nickel from its Oxides ... Air and Waterproof Fabrics . . . . . . Preparing Colouring Matters for Dyeing Obtaining Aldehyds from Phenols ... hl anufacturing Sugar . . . . . . . . . Treating Sewage . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacture of S d a Ash . . . . . . . . . Revivifying Animal Charcoal . . . . . . Vulcanized India Rubber Types, Stamps. &c . Disinfectants for treating Fibrous Materials Mixing Cocoa. Corn Flour. &c., with Milk Prepared Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . Disinfectants and Deodorizers India Rubber and Gutta Percha Cimpo;;;ds Disinfecting and Packing Manure ... Treating Grains . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... rice . Bd . 6d. 4d. 6d. 6d. 6d. 2d. 2d. 2d. 2d. 2d. 6d. 2d. 4d. 2d. 2d. 4d. 2d. 4d. 2d. 3d. 2d. 4d. 4d. 4d. 2a. 2a. 2a. -

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8760100167

出版商:RSC    

年代:1876

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

168 THE ANALYST. FINES FOR OFFENCES AGAINST THE “SALE O F FOOD AND DRUGS’ ACT,” IN IRELAND. D. Farrell, for refusing to serve an Inspector ... ... ... ... ... P. Nolan, for selling inilk adulterated with 25 per cent. of water ... ... ... T. Lambert, for selling milk adulterated with 20 per cent. of water W. Barry, for selling milk adulterated with 30 per cent. of water ... ... ... L. Woods, for selling milk adulterated with 20 per cent.of water ... ... ... P. Murphy, for refusing to serve an Inspector ... ... ... ... ... hard labour for three months) ... ... ... ... ... ... P. M‘Arabe, for selling milk adulterated with 20 per cent. of water Eate Eenna, for selling miik adulterated with 50 per cent. of water ... ... ... J. Dorm, for selling milk adulterated with 20 per cent.of water ... .*. ... G. Keogh, for selling milk adulterated with 20 per cent. of water ... ... ... J. Cullen, for seliing milk adulterated with 20 per cent. of water ... ... ... P. Brookall, for selling milk adulterated with 10 per cent. of water ... ... ... J. Leneham, for selling milk adulterated with 30 per cent. of water ... ... ... 31. Maguire, for selling milk adulterated with 30 per cent.of water ... ... ... ... ... P. Behan, for refusing to seryF: an Inspector, (with the alternative of imprisonment with ... I . . ... $6 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 We take the foregoing fifteen cases from the Irish Times, of the 3rd inst., and seeing that they were all tried on the same day, that the analyses were all performed by one analyst (Dr.Cameron), and that.the fines amount in the aggregate to $69, we think the tabulated report will be of interest to some of our English brethren, in whose districts, for similar offences as those detailed above, half-crown and five shilling fines obtain.THE ANALYST. 169 PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SALE OF-FOOD AND DRUGS’ ACT.AT MARLBOROUGH STREET.-Mr. Edwin Holland, cheesemonger, 2, Goodge Street, was summoned before Mr. Knox for selling adulterated butter. Mr. Ricketts stated that the butter purchased at the defendant’s shop was found to be adulterated to the extent of 75 or 80 per cent. Mr. Knox asked if there was any Fuggestion that the adulteration contained anything injurious to health. The case was that there wits grease of some sort, not butter.Mr. Plegg said the defendant had bo-ught the butter in the State he sold it from a firm in West Smithfield. The practice of the firm was to send to customers a man with a van. It was impossible for the defendant to make an analysis on the spot qf butter sent to him as he wanted it for immediate sale. He was in the habit, however, of applying at once a particular test by inserting a knife, and when the knife was withdrawn, if fat adhered to it the butter was held to be good butter.The defendant applied this test and found it, as he supposed, to be ood butter. He asked the man who came with the van for good butter, and the man said the butter he gave?& was good. As soon as he knew he was to be summoned, he wrote to the firm who supplied the butter, Messrs.Garstin & Co., West Smitbfield. The answer he received was to the effect that they did not sell such goods as butter, but as “ bosh.” The defendant had done all he could be fairly expected to do in testing the butter, and that the wholesale dealers ought to be the persons summoned. Mr. Ricketts said the defendant had not protected himself as he might have done by a warranty. John Brown, the defendant‘s foreman, said he bought the butter in question of a man named James Franklin, in the employ of Messrs.Garstin & Co., West Smithfield, and on testing it in the usual way he found it waxy. If butter was of inferior quality it would be found ‘( sticky” when rubbed between the fingers, Before completing the purchase he asked Franklin if the butter would stand the test, and Franklin replied quite indignantly, ‘6 Stand the test ?--yes <’ and he then bought the butter at 115s.per cwt. and sold it at 14d. per lb. They got more profit on good butter than on bad or inferior butter. Replying to Mr. Ricketts, witness said tho best fresh butter was sold at 2s. per lb. This butter was salt, and the best Dorsteshire salt butter sold for 1s.6d. per lb. The man who bought the butter in question asserted that it would stand the test, and it did so. It was more to the defendant’s interest in the way of profit to sell real butter than bad butter. He never had a guarantee from Messrs. Garstin and Co., and they never would give one. Mr. Ricketts reminded the defendant of the printed notice he had stuck on the butter-that a warranty would not be given.The defendant said a person came round to shops with printed labels, and he bought some. H e had never taken any butter he bought to the analyst to be analysed. Mr. Knox thought it was asking him too much to say that a man who had been in the trade for seven years did not know wbat he was buying. He did not mean to say a man in trade was bound to know everything at once, but the defendant, if he had doubts, ought to have taken the butter to the analyst without delay.The public looked upon the retail dealer as responsible for the quality of the goods he sold. The defendant was fined 35 and costs.-Mr. Abraham Hunt, 41, Goodge Street, was summoned for a similar offence.The certificate of the analyst stated that the adulteration matter was 80 per cent. The defendant said the butter was just as he recived it from the wholesale dealer in the, City, and he had placed a notice on the butter stating that it was adulterated. Mr. Knox fined the defendant $5 and 2s. costs.-The Times. Mr. Ricketts prosecuted, Mr. Flegg defended. Mr. Ricketts replied there was not. Mr. Flegg said a warranty was not given with foreign butter. The defendant, on being sworn, said he had been in business about seven years.THE ANALYST. - OTTO WOLTERS, 55, UPPER MARYLEBONE STREET, PORTLAND LONDON, W., PLACE, BALANCE MAKER, (Many Years with L. OERTLING.) THE NEW IMPROVED SHORT- EAMEB ANALYTICAL BALANCES. A SPECIALITY. A deescrktion explaining t i e principb oJ these Balunces post f h e on application. All Balances are adjusted by Mr, WOLTERS himself under absolute guarantee.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8760100168

出版商:RSC    

年代:1876

数据来源: RSC