ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN87802FP061

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN87802BP063

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE A N A L Y S T . MIS-INTERPRETATIONS O F THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS’ ACT. SEVERAL recent decisions under this Act present such striking instances of mis-interpre- tation that we think it necessary to call special attention to them, in order, not only that they may be considered by analysts in the certificates they give, but also that the ground may be more prepared for bringing them at the earliest opportunity under the notice of Parliament.The first, an2 perhaps most important of these decisions, is in a case reported on another page, in which a milk dealer at Glasgow had been summoned for selling to an inspector, cream containing ‘‘ more than 50 per cent. of the other ingredients of milk ; ” the Sheriff convicted the defendant, and imposed a fine of $2. The defendant appealed to the Justiciary Appeal Court, and the argument against the conviction was that the inspector was not prejudiced by having purchased an article of this quality, that in fact it was quite immaterial to him as a public officer, buying the article solely for analysis, whether it was pure or impure, as udder no circumstances would he consume any part of it.Several other questions were raised, all of them with the singular persistency which seeks technical points of defence, instead of accepting the broad principle of appeal to the chemists at Somerset Kouse laid down by the Act, but the point as to prejudice was the only one on which the decision was given in favour of the defendant, and here the Lord Justice Clerk was distinctly of opinion that the conviction could not stand, and four of the other lords who sat with him arrived at the same conclusion and coneurred in the decision, while two other judges thought that the judgment should be allowed to stand.It is worth noting, however-if the reports in the Glasgow papers of the grounds on which Lord Adam and Lord Craighill dissented from the opinions of the other judges is correct-that they did not dissent because they thought the inspector was really prejudiced, or that the terms of the Act had been fulfilled, but simply because they thought that, under the circumstances, it was not competent to the defendant to have appealed at all-in other words, they thought the original conviction was mrong, but that they had no power to set it right.It does not need any words of ours to show that if such a decision as this is to be upheld, the Act is entirely a dead letter, except as regards those other clauses, under which it is still possible to charge offenders.Thus for instance, it would still be possible to charge a vendor under the 3rd, i.e. the injurious to health section, or under the 4th, which is the drug section, or under the 7th, viz., the compound article section, or under the 9th section, which relates to abstraction, but it is seldom that it is convenient to proceed under any of these different sections. Should the English magistrates or judges on appeal, follow this Scotch decision, it is clear that any Bill to be brought before Parliament for amending the Act, must deal with the question as to L 6 prejudice.” The next case to which we must refer, is the prosecution of a publican for selling beer containing a quantity of salt, which was commenced before the issue of our last number, but as the decision was not given we held over the report.We now reprint a rather full report, and it will be seen that the magistrate’s decision amounts virtually t o this :-that if, as he believes is the case, the brewers have put the salt into the beer, it190 THE ANALYST.is impossible to proceed against the publican; and carrying it still further, we may infer from his remarks that, he has very great doubts whether the salt was put in as a necessary constituent of the sugar or as a deliberate adulteration. This case has evoked a considerable amount of discussion in the brewing papers, some of which has taken an undesirable personal tone.It seems to be generally admitted now by nearly all the parties to the controversy, that the sugar introduced in the brewing of the beer in question was specially prepared sugar, sold under the name of ‘I brewers’ concrete,” which contained a larger quactity of common salt than could ever be present in genuine sugar made either from cane or beet.If this is so, it appears t o us that the adulteration is quite as clearly shown by the proof of the addition of salt to the sugar, as if the salt had been added to the beer itself. One of the defendant’s witnesses swore that he had analysed this sugar, and that the quantity of salt it contained was sufficient t o account for more than 50 grains of total chlorides per gallon.As pure sugar is absolutely free from chlorides, and even the grossly impure sugar used for brewing purposes contains only an infinitessimal quantity, this certainly appears to us a bad case of adulteration. Another case we must allude t o :-A Metropolitan magistrate has decided that the note to the Schedule of the Act, giving the form of certificate which should be adopted, and which states where the article cannot conveniently be weighed, this (the weight) may be omitted,” is insufficient to protect analysts from the necessity of weighing every sample as they receive it.The magistrate thinks that it is quite convenient for an analyst to have balances in his lnboratory ca,pable of weighing anything up‘to a quartern loaf or a gallon of beer, and although considerate enough to say that he thought the nearest ounce would be sufficient, yet he insisted on the weight being put in the certificate. If this decision is followed generally, analysts work will be again incon- veniently increased to serve no useful purpose whatever. We do not think we otight t o conclude this article without calling attention to the resolution passed at the last meeting of the Society of Public Analysts with reference to the Inland Revenue Chemists, and expressing our earnest hope that the latter will accede to the Society’s request.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780200189

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

190 THE ANALYST. SOCIETY OF 1’UBLIC ANALYSTS. THE ANNIVERSARY MEETJX’G was held on the 16th January, 1878, at Burlington House, Piccadillg, the President, Dr. Duprk, F.R.S., in the Chair. The Ninutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed. The Presideut delivered the annual address. I t is a !,leasant thing for me for the second time to congratulate the members of this Society 011 the return of an Anniversary Meeting, when we may take, as it were, a fresh start on our career, and it is still more satisfactory that we can make this fresh start with an outlook for the future which certainly embraces some points more satisfactory than was the case a t our last.Anniversary Meeting. The past year has not been free from analytical troubles and disturbances, and the Society of Public Analysts has certainly not been exempted from them.Beferring, as briefly as I can to the principal events which have interested us as a Society during the p a r , it is natural to notice first of all the erroneous interpretations which, from time to time, have been made of the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, and as a natural conse- He said :-THE ANALYST.191 quence, the several miscarriages of justice which have taken place. Among the latest of these mis-interpretations I may notice that the Glasgow Magistrates have positively refused to convict tradesmen selling adulterated goods on the evidence of an inspector, because, they say, the inspectors were not prejudiced by the purchase, as they only bought them for the purpose of analysis.I t is scarcoly necessary to remark that such a decision as this is in direct contradiction to the spirit of the Act, as well as, in my opinion, to the wording of it, and also to the intentions of the legislature in passing it. Of course if such a decision is allowed to stand the Act would be rendered entirely void, and it is to be hoped that Scotch Magistrates will speedily return to the interpretation put upon the Act by English Magistrates.Serious hindrances have been produced in the working of the Act by the steps which the Inland Revenue Chemists have taken. First among the mistakes they have made I ought probably to notice the quantity of salt they are passing as permissible in beer. I t is interecting and I must say sad to note that the very same officiala who Bome few years ago examined a large number of samples of beer (which it should be noted were not purchased direct from the brewers, but from the retailers throughout the whole kingdom), and who then agreed to a maximum of 50 grains per gallon as being the utmost which it was necessary to allow, have recently signed a certificate and added to it a gratuitous statement that 68 grains j s sometimes found in genuine ales.I t certainly needs very serious consideration whether these Chemists, acting as they do as a kind of Appeal Court on purely chemical matters, should be allowed t o make any addendum of any kind to their certificate. On the first appearance of the thing it certainly seems wiser that they should be compelled t o state the facts only, leaving others who are perhaps better qualified than themselves to draw inferences from the facts.There is another class of cases in which their proceedings have repeatedly rendered prosecutions abortive, viz., that in analysing samples of decomposed milk, they have in many cases made an unknown, and, as far as I am aware, uncertain allowance for decomposition. Now although decomposition may doubtless require t o be taken into account in the case of the analjsis of very stale milk, it is perfectly clew that when any correction is made for the decomposition, that correction should be stated on the face of the certificate in such a may as to allow evidence to be taken to either confirm or disprove the accuracy of the data used. It appears to me that this defect is due to a bad feature in the system.It is customary among chemihts, as among other professional men, to publish every new discovery or improvement which they may make in processes of analysis, medicine or surgery, in order that it may be fairly criticised and examined by those who are free from the bias which inevitably attaches to an inventor, and the weak points, if any, of the process or of the discovery are fairly pointed out. I think it is clear that this criticism not only tends to improve the process itself but gives information t o all other workers in the same field.As regards the Inlaod Revenue Chemists, however, this rule has not been adhered to. The first time their peculiar process for the analpis of butter was ever allowed to be known outside the walls of their laboratory was when it was extracted in examination in gouthwark Police Court, and, as far as I am aware, no publication of any kind has taken place in reference to the data on which they work for the analysis of stale or slightly decomposed milk.The consequence is that their processes, not being published, and not being open to public criticiam, cannot possibly command confidence,192 THE ANALYST.This is not as it should be; both parties to the controversy lose by such a state of things. Public Analysts lose the benefit of the experience and work of the Inland Revenue Chemists,-and differ as much as we may from them we must certainly admit that they can do some good work-while on the other hand the Iriland Revenue employes lose the benefit of that criticism which is the only true means of fairly judging the value of work.When they were first appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act t o act as referees in disputed cases they took what was perhaps under the circum- stances a rigbt and proper view of their position-they considered that they were appointed by the Legislature virtually to act as defenders of tradesmen in all cases in which they could be fairly and honestly defended ; in other words their standpoint was to mme extent opposite to that of the Public Analyst.Under the Act it is unquestionably the duty of the Public Analyst to endeavour to defend the consumers of food, drink, and drugs from imposture or fraud, and they being so protected, the Inland Revenue Chemists were not required as far as the general public was concerned, but the traders complained that in some cases too much heed was given to grievances which were only imaginary and not real on the part of the consumers, and consequently the Inland Revenue Chemists were appointed to protect the vendors.This necessary, although somewhat unfortunate conflict of interests has been perhaps, to a great degree, the cause of the discrepancies which, upon two or three occasions, have been shown by the results obtained by the different chemists.Passing from this on to another subject, I may note that during the year a Limited Liability Company called the Institute of Chemistry, has been formed, and has duly received a license from the Board of Trade.The object of the Institute, as put forward by its promoters, is to discriminate between competent and incompetent chemists. The matter has been often referred to at our meetings, and especially in the discussion which took place recently on the desirability of changing the name of this Society, so that I need say little more in reference to it, except that the new Institute is-like our own Society-entirely G voluntary association of members, and that it has no power to confer degrees or diplomas of any kind.Our Society being essentially a working society,-that is, one for the reading of papers on practical subjects, which scarcely enters into the programme of the Institute-there is ample scope for both Societies. As regards ourselves during the past year we have prospered fairly well, considering the influences which have been brought to bear against us.Tradesmen, until recently, have been in the habit of denouncing not only the members of this Society, but all analysts, as impertinent intermeddlers, and it has been uncommon to see an aiialyst’s name without the prefix “incompetent,” but now times have changed, and even the trade journal of the grocers acknowledges that ‘‘ adulteration is rampant.” I f any proof were needed that there is plenty of work for the members of this Society to do, this statement supplies it.As public officers, analysts must dismiss every personal question, and simply do their duty as laid down by the law, and suppress adulteration in whatever form, or in whatever quarter it may exist.There is one point on which I think analysts err, and that is in appearing in court as witnesses for the defence-there seem t o me to be very few casea in which a public analyst holding as he does a government appointment, should appear as a witness for the defence in a case where the certificate of another public analyst is in question. The law has already provided a tribunal to which appeal can be made, and though this tribunalTHE ANALYST.193 has not up to the present erred on the side of too great stringency in prosecutions, yet it is amply sufficient for the purpose. No Excise officer would be allowed to appear for the defence in Excise prosecutions, and similarly it appears to me that no public analyst should be allowed t o appear as a witness for the defence in a prosecution under the Sale of Food Act.Our Society during the year has Incieased slightly in numbers, though of course we hare lost a few members by withdrawal, and one, Professor Apjohn, by death. Seven new members have been elected in addition t o the four we hare elected this evening. I n looking a t the figures we must bear in mind how small is the constituency from which we can at present draw our members; there are probably less than 200 men in England who are eligible t o become Members of the Society of Public Analysts under the present constitution, and we have now a tolerably good percentage of theso as members.Under the present constitution however, the income which the subscriptions from the present members brings in is barely sufficient for our needs.A journal like The AizaZyst,-which publishes from month to month probably more original papers on strictly analytical work than any othcr periodical except the Journal of the Chemical Society, 22 papers having been read last year before this Society, and published in The Analyst, while 11 more papers were published which were not read before the Society, or a total of 33 in all,-cannot be conducted without considerable expense, and we have to pay those gentlemen who have so kindly undertaken the responsibility of conducting it, for the expenses they incur in publishing our proceedinp, but even this payment has been very little more than half the cost which was incurred by the Society during the year when The Analyst was published at the coat of the Society itself.I n order to meet this cost and possibly enable The Analyst to be enlarged, and to do what no other similar journal does, viz., report the papers read at these meetings closely up to date, we shall need more money. The Council have had this matter under their serious consideration, and although thcy have come t o the conclusion that it would be a great mistake to alter in any way the real limits laid down by the constitution, as defining those who should be eligible for membership of this Society, viz.analysts in practice, ihey are considering whether assistants, who have been in salaried employment for not less than two years after the expiration of their term of; pupilage, may not fairly be classed as analysts in practice within the meaning of the rules the difference betweeu them and the present members being simply that thtir fees are received in the shape of a fixed salary and not as a certain sum per sample.If this should be done I think the Society might fairly expect a fresh access of members, whose subscriptions would bring tbe balance of the accounts on to the right side.This alteration would give to a class of men, who, by the mere fact of their receiving for a term of years definite salaries for pure chemical work, are proved to be qualified, the opportunity of joining our Society, and slthough we cacnot and do not desire to grant a diploma, yet the fact of membership Till, we think, he considered by the public as some kind of guarantee that a man has a certain status in the chemical world.The Session of Parliament which opens to-morrow seems likely to prore a busy one on analytical natters, for legislation on more than one point appears imminent. The question of impure diugs is t o be raised, and probably following the abortive bill, lvhich TI’US introducued torards the close of last session, Parliament will again be asked to194 THE ANALYST.A. DUPBE, PH.D., F.R.S., F.C.S. decide on a fixed strength for spirits. Water and gas are also likely to come forward again as prominent questions, and on all these and any other points of chemical legislation, the Society of Public Analysts ought to have something to say, and that, I think, is another strong reason why we should have a little more money.One word more,-we as a Society ought certainly to try to suppress the practice of underbidding, and of advertising certificates of milk analyses at 2s. 6d., and water analyses a t 7s. 6d. ; I have seen advertked in many a grocer's shop certificates of the purity of nearly everything in the place. I am quite sure that the low fees cannot pay for honest work, and that no fees, however high, can pay for risking a reputation made by years of work and study in certifying t o the purity of the goods which other people sell.All this should be done away with. A ballot was then taken for the election of Officers and Council for the present year, and for new members proposed for election. Messrs. Adams and Slater were appointed scrutineers to examine the voting papers, and they reported that the following had been CHARLES HErscH, F.C.8. G.W. WIGNER, F.C.S. elected :- President. Hon. Xecretaries. I Vice- Presidents. A, H. ALLEN, F.C.S. A. H. CHURCH, N.A., F.C.S. J, MUTER, PH.D., M.A., F.C.S. Treasurer. C. W. HEATON, F,C.S. Other M'eemliers of Cozcncil. J. C. BROWN, D.Sc., F.C.S. C. A. CANERON, N.D. W. H. CORFIELD, M.D., F.C.S. J. FALCONER XING. H.C. BARTLETT, PH.D., F.C.S. J. W. TRIPE, M.D. Those Members of Council whose term of office has not expired, and who consequently do not retire this Fear, are Messrs. A. WYNTER BLYTH, M.R.C.S., F.C.S. JOHN CLARE, PH.D. ALFRED HILL, M.D., F.C.& E. W. T. JONES, F.C.S. JV. W. STODDART, F.C.S. The scrutineers also reported that Messrs. J. H. Martin, J. W. Gatehouse, J.Whitln, and A . A. Nesbit had been elected members of the Society, and Messrs. F. W. Gear and W. J. Williams as associates. Dr. Dupr6 proposed, Xr. Wigner seconded, and it was unanimously resolved that the President of the Chemical Society, Dr. Gladstone, F.R.S., be in accordance with precedent, elected an honorary member of the Socictp, and that the late President 3'. A . Abel, C.B., F.R.S.be re-elected as an honorary member, his official term having cxpired, and they were accordingly electcd. Dr. H. W. Hake wa3 proposed as a member, and will be ballotted for at the next meeting. A discussion took place as to the analyses made at Somerset House, and Mr. Wigner said that considering the unsatisfactory character of the decision in those cases in which appeal is made to Somerset Eouse, not only because there was often a difference between the Somerset House Chemists and themselves, but because they didTHE ANALYST.195 not know on what basis the Somerset House Chemists were working, he should propose that the Society pass a resolution directing the secretaries to address a letter to the principal of the Somereet House Laboratory, asking him t o read a paper a t the Society’s next meeting, or at a special meeting to be called for the purpose, to lay definitely before the Society the bases on which they work as regards milk and other things, pointing out their reasons for differing from the Society’s standard, and the modes of yrocedure which they adopt.Dr. Muter seconded the proposal, saying that at present they were all working in the dark as regards the views of the Inland lievenue Chemists.Dr. Bartlett supported the proposal and said he thought it would be most desirable if thcy could get the authorities at Somerset Eouse not only to give them the benefit of their ordinary working methods, but also to forward papers on any matters which could be tested out. Dr. Dupr6 cordially agreed in all that had been said, and observed that people soon found out whai the standard or the limit of Somerset House was, and they began to adulterate down t o that standard, and he thought it would be very desirable if they could induce the Somerset House Chemists to come there, and he did not see if they were mct fairly why they should refuse to come. The resolution was put to the meeting and carried unanimously. The Secretaries submitted the accounts for the past year, and Auditors were appointed to audit and report on them at the next meeting, Mr. Wigner gave a short abstract of a note on some samples of Canadian butter, which will be published in our next number. After the meeting the Anniversary Dinner took place at the Criterion,” Piccadilly, and among the visitors were Dr. Cameron, U.P. for Glasgow, Mr. A. P. Bower, and Mr. Gee.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780200190

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 195 SONE CONSTITUENTS OF HOPS. BY EMERY GILBEET BISSELL, Prr.G. From the American Journal of Pharmacy, Decem6er, 1877. IT is prett? generally supposed that lupulin contains all the active principles of the hop. Some doubt. in regard to this having been recently expressed, the writer has endeavoured to settle the question, with what success may be judged from the following experiments. The best of hops were selected, those as nearly ripe as could be found during picking ; from these the bracts were carefully removed ; the ends next t o the achenes, to which part of the bracts most of the lupulin adheres, were trimmed off with scissors; the remainder of each bract was then passed between the thumb and finger to remove the remaining particles of lupulin, a magnifying glass being used from time to time to see that the work mas thoroughly accomplished.This process is a difficdt and tedious one, the lupulin adhering to the bracts with considerable tenacity. The bracts were then allowed to dry, without the aid of artificial heat, and were found to shrink about three- fourths in weight; after much perseverance one troy ounce of the dried bracts was obtained.Some difficulty was next experienced in powdering them ; rubbing them with sand in a mortar was first tried, and found to be exceedingly slow work; grinding in a drug mill was next attempted, but found to be simply impossible; the method finally resorted to, and found to work nicely, was to cut the bracts in pieces with196 THE ANALYST. shears. This may readily be done by grasping the hand full of them and passing the shears repeatedly through many of them at once, sifting out the fine particles from time to time.The powder thus obtained was exhausted with stronger alcohol, and a tincture obtained possessing a bitter taste and some odour, neither of which would, however, hardly remind one of hops. The alcohol was distilled off from the tincture, and an extract obtained weighing seventy grains.To the distillate was added some water, the alcohol distilled off at a gentle heat, and the heat then raised. The distilled water was observed t o have a slight foreign odour, but could not be recognized as the odour of hops; it had no effect on litmus paper, and produced no change in colour with a solution of permanganate of potassa, evidently containing not more than the merest trace of volatile organic matter.Of the extract obtained twenty grains was reserved for further experiment, the remaining fifty grains being tried in the following manner :-One half of it was given to a healthy person ; no effect being experienced, in one hour the remainder was given ; no effect whatever was noticed upon either pulse, temperature or respiration.The portion reserved was dried by means of the water-bath until it ceased t o lose weight, after which the weight was found to be 1.013 gram ; of this, -225 gram, or about 22 per cent., was insoluble in water; the p d i o n soluble in water was found to give the reactions characteristic of tannin, and also to contain a small amount of bitter extractive.The am;)unt of the extract reserved was, however, too small to admit of many ex- periments. I then endeavoured to determine the nature of the tannin contained in hops, 700 grains of which were exhausted with boiling water, the decoction evaporated nearly to extractive consistence, and treated with alcohol t o remove the gummy matter. The alcohol was evaporated and tho residue dissolved in water ; the percentage of tannin was then estimated by means of a standardized solution of gelatine containing alum ; only about 6 per cent.of tannin could be found. The remainder of the solution was then precipitated with neutral acetate and with subacetate of lead ; the two precipitates had much the same appearance, and both were soluble in acetic acid.They were each thoroughly washed, then suspended in water, and decomposed with sulphuretted hydrogen. The filtrate from each was found to contain the tannin, which gave a blackish-green colour with ferric chloride, and precipitated a solution of gelatine containing alum. The two solutions were zllixed and the tannin precipitated with an excess of common salt, from which an unsuccessful attempt was made to entirely free it.For the final experiment six ounces of hops were taken and exhausted with boiling water ; the decoction wa8 concentrated, treated with alcohol, filtered, the alcohol evaporntcd off, the residue dissolved in water, and the percentage of tannin estimated 8s before ; only a little more than fire tenths per cent. being found. The solution, being acid to test paper, was carefully neuti alized with ammonia and precipitated with neutral acetate of lead, a bright yellow precipitate being obtained ; the filtrate gave no reaction with subacetate of lead and contained no tannin.The precipitate was thoroughly washed, suspended in water, decompcsed with sulphuretted hydrogen, the precipitate washed until the Tashicg.s gave no colour with ferric chloride, and the filtrate evaporated to a small bulk, and shaken with ether in hopes that the tannin might be dissolved; the ether, however, flailed to take up any of the tannin, and portions of the solution were therefore treated with the following re-agents :-Tarter emetic, which produced a nearlyTHE ANALYST.197 white precipititte on standing ; ferrous sulphate, no effect ; sulphuric and hydrochloric acid at once produced precipitates ; protochloride of tin, no effect ; sulphate of copper, no effect; solution of potassa gave a dark reddish-brown colour, but no precipitate; gelatin gave a precipitate on standing.The green-black precipitate with ferric chloride certainly indicates that this is not gallotannic acid, which in other respects it resembles, and the reaction with the mineral acids would seem to show with equal certainty that the tannin is not moritannic acid, which it is stated by Wagner to resemble.KOTE ON A METHOD O F VALUATION OF THE RELATIVE IMPURITIES OF DRINKING WATERS. By G. TV. WIONER, F.C.S. I HAVE been engaged for some time past in the preparation of a numerical scale so as to enable an approximate estimate to be made of the amount of impurity represented by every jgure in a water analysis. I have been experimenting on this scale as applied to some 200 analyses of water which have been made for and published in the Sanitary Reeord, and I hope t o bring the subject before the Society of Public Analysts at their next meeting. The point which I am seeking to bring out is, that certain definite allowances should be made for the nitrogen in every other form of combination as well as in that of albuminoid ammonia, and that the salt, loss on ignition, oxygen absorbed and microscopical results should also each be credited with a certain valne.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780200195

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 197 PUBLIC ANALYSTS’ WORK DURING 1877. THE Local Government Board have issued to all local authorities, circulars referring to the Quarterly Reports made by Public Analysts under the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, and enclosed with the circular are forms which the Board desires may be filled up for its information, in order that the Analysts’ Reports may be embodied in the Board’s Annual Report.It is unnecessary to print the forms here, as we have had several hundreds printed and sent to nearly all Public Analysts in the Kingdom, as we thought it would be very desirable, on account of the length of time which must necessarily elapse before the Board’s Report appears, that we should publish in the March number of Th Analyst, a tabulated statement similar t o that which, by the kindness of Public Analysts generally, we were enabled to place before our readers last year.I n our letter accompanying the form we point out that the returns for our purpose need not be quite so full as those the Local Government Board require, as we only want details of each adulterated sample, while the Board require details of eveq sample-adulterated or genuine. We trust that Public Analysts will endeavour, as far as possible, to follow the form sent by the Board, 80 that after the great trouble it has taken on the question, the Board may soon be enabled to put its valuable Report in the possession of the public, and allow them to be the judges, from the work done, as to the desirability of permitting such conduct as that of the Faversham and Dover Justices, in refusing to appoint analysts.I f any Public Analysts, whether belonging to the Society or not, have not received copies of the form of Report and will communicate with us, we shall be happy to send some, and we shall be glad if all analysts would let us have their forms filled up by at latest the 21st of next month,

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780200197

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

198 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. GLASGOW CREAM. IN the Justiciary Appeal Court, Edinburgh recently, an important decision was given in an alleged adulteration of cream case. I n April last, Mr. Walker, an inspector connected with the Sanitary Department in Glasgow, purchased from James Davidson, milk dealer, 36, Norfolk Street, Glasgow, sixpence worth of cream, which, he stated, was for the purpose of analysis.The sale was made by Davidson’s wife. Thereafter, Eenneth M’Eenzie M’Leod, inspector of nuisances in Glasgow, and who was appointed by the Police Board to enforce the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, 1875, presented a complaint to the sheriff, in which he stated that the article supplied to Walker ‘( wall not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded.” Davidson pleaded not guilty, but the sheriff- substitute (Lees) held that the charge had been proved, and imposed a fine of &2.It was stated that the cream contained, besides fatty matter, a considerable proportion--more than 50 per cent.-of the other ingredients of milk ; that within certain limits, genuine cream varies in richness or percentage of fat ; and that the quantity of cream sent up from milk depends on the period during which the milk is allowed to stand or settle, and also upon the disposi- tion of the cows and the nature of their food. I n convicting the appellant, the sheriff held, in fact, that the article sold on this occasion, whether or not it contained the various ingredients from which a certain quantity of cream might be formed, was not as a whole, of the nature, substance, and quality of the article known as cream; and in law (1) that where, as here, the purchase was made under the 13th section of the Act, it was not necessary in order to justify a conviction that the sale should be to the pecuniary prejudice of the purchaser, but only that the article sold should not be of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded, and of an inferior nature, substance, or quality ; that in the event of there being any special circumstances-temporary or permancnt-in the nature of the cow, owing to which its milk was unfit to yield cream, except of an inferior quality, the seller was not entitled to sell such an inferior product as cream, if, in truth, it was not of the nature, substance, and quality of cream ; (3) that the mere presence in milk of the various ingredients from which cream is formed, and had been to some extent formed, did not justify a dairyman, even though he had done nothing to impoverish the milk, in selling the compound as cream any more than in selling new milk as cream ; and (4) that the non-adulteration of the article sold, or the premature period at which it might have been taken from the milk, though they might explain the result and mitigate the penalty, could not, to any extent, relieve the seller of the responsibility imposed on him by the statute.Davidson appealed to this court against the conviction, and the questions put to the court by the appellant were-whether the sale of the Cream was to the prejudice of the purchaser, as stated in the complaint ; seeing that genuine cream varies in quality, whether the law has fixed a minimum percentage of fat for cream, and settled that any combination of milk and fat containing less than that percentage shall not be held to be cream, so that a magistrate may convict a party of a contravention of the section of the statute founded on in this case, who sells as cream an article with less than that percentage of fat ; whether the city analyst of Glasgow or any other man is entitled to set up a standard for cream so as to make any party who sells a cream under the standard guilty of a contravention of the section of the statute founded on ; and whether the facts of the present case warranted a conviction under the section of the statute founded on.On behalf of the respondents the questions were put- whether in this instance a stated case was a competent proceeding ; whether the questions put by the appellant or any of them were questions of law ; and whether the finding of the Sheriff-Substitute that the article in question wa6 not cream, or in the words of the statute, “not of the nature, substance,,and quality demanded,” was one of fact or not, subject to review. The Sheriff wa of opinion, on the construction of the statute, that the offence specified in the 6th section had been committed.While the analysis bore that the cream did not come up to the commercial standard, it also proved quite clearly that no extraneous or foreign substance had been added to it, and the question truly involved in the finding of the Sheriff was this-whether it was enough to constitute a statutory offence under this 6th section, that the article sold was not of the quality demanded.His lordship considered this question of very great moment as regarded the operation of this undoubtedly important statute. I t was one thing to legislate for defects i n the quality of the article sold, and it was another thing to provide against adulteration by the introduction of foreign substances.If they read this clause as regulating defects in quality, the construction opened so wide a door for the questioning of familiar contracts in commerce, that it was ditficult to see what importance could be attached t o it. Every new article of ordinary consumption might be said not to be of the quality ordered, and in this way many difficult questions might arise.It was intended, like all preceding statutes, to strike only at the introduction of foreign substances into articles of food and cousumption ; and that he conceived to be a very important elenlent in the consideration of this clause. The 6th clause was intended to apply to the mixture of articles of food or drugs with substances foreign to the thing The Lord Justice-Clerk was of opinion that the conviction could not stand.He was of opinion that the statute intended no such thing.THE ANALYST. 199 itself, but not injurious to health ; and the offence consisted in selling to the prejudice of the purchaser any article not of the nat,ure, substance, and quality demanded by him. These were ambiguous words.E e read them one way, and the Sheriff read them in another. They might mean, as the Sheriff thought, where the article was deficient in any of the three qualities specified, or where it was deficient in any of them, and it was in this latter sense his Lordship thought the words ought to be read. The evidence on which the Sheriff founded showed that no foreign substance or extraneous matter had been introduced into this commodity, If it were enough that the cream was not up to the commercial standard, then the conviction would stand ; but his Lordship was of opinion that this was not sufficient, and be said it would lead to the greatest inconvenience if they were to construe it to mean that if the quality of the article sold in open market was not up to that which was demanded, a general offence had been committed under the clause, On the other point his Lordrhip said that it must be proved that the article sold was under the 6th section to the prejudice of the purchaser, yet the Sheriff found that this was an offence, although the prejudice had not been proved.This was where the Sheriff had entirely misconstrued the-section, and on this ground his Lordahip thought that the apppeal must be sustained. Lords Deas, Young, blure, and the Lord President arrived a t the same result, each stating their opinions at great length.Lord Adam, with whom Lord Craighill concurred, thought the judgment of the Sheriff should be allowed to stand. A decision of matters of fact was not admittedly subject to review, and the facts being admitted, there was nothing in this case which, as he thought, seemed or suggested that in any of his conclusions the Sheriff had been misled by an error in law.-Glaqow News.SALT IN BEER. ON Wednesday, December 19, at the Thames Police Court, James Scott, landlord of the Wellington beerhouse, St. Leonard’s Road, Bromley, was summoned at the instance of the Metropolitan Board of Works for the Poplar district, for selling beer adulterated to the extent of 63 grains of salt to the gallon.Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Board; Mr. Besley, barrister, for the defendant. William Harrison, one of the inspectors of nuisances to the Board, said that oc Thursday, the 29th ult., he went to the Wellington beerhouse, St.Leonard‘s Road, Bromley, kept by the defendant, and asked his wife, who was serving behind the bar, for a pint and a half of porter. He was served, and then told the wife that he had purchased it to have it analysed. He also applied for a pint of fourpenny ale, but was told it was thick. A few minutes afterwards the defendant entered the house and went into the cellar, and shortly afterwards his wife served the witness with the liquor applied for.He divided it into three Parts, and did the same with it as he had done with the porter. Mr. William Young, analyst to the Board, said that on the 29th ult., he received a sample of porter and ale from the lalit witness to be analysed. The certificate produced was his, and he there stated it was adulterated to the extent of 63 grains of salt per gallon.I n cross-examination by Mr. Besley, the witnese said he had never made any beer, but had seen it made. He did not how much salt there might be in hops. He was not aware of the natural quantity of salt in Burton water. He found that a pot of Truman and Hanbury’e strong ale contained 16 grains of salt.Mr. Chnrles Heisch, consulting chemist to the Corporation of London, said he found 66 grains of salt to the gallon in the porter, and 70 in the ale. H e did not say its presence would be injurious to health. He could not tell the quantity of common salt or the amount of hops used in a gallon of beer. Laurence Burleigh, head brewer at Truman and Hanbury’s, Spitalfields, said he had been in their service over 30 years, and had sole charge of the brewery department.All articles used in the brewery department would come under his personal cognizance. Salt was not bought or used in any shape or form. Saccharine matter was imported, and the duty paid to the Excise. Breweries were always open to inspection, He found some ale of the same brewing as that which had been sold to the defendant.There was no salt put into it, and he did not dare to use bad water. Saccharine matter was not used in ale to the extent it was iu porter, I n reply to Mr. Young, the witness said the firm used Hartley’s deep-well water and the East London water. He had heard that, on some water they had used being analysed, three and a half grains of salt to the gallon had been detected.I n answer to the magistrate the witness said he had heard country brewers used salt to some extent, hut London brewers did not. The quantity of malt they used was rather more than one half, the other half was saccharine matter. Mr. Dugald Campbell, an analyst, said he was well acquainted with the ingredients used in brewing beers, and he was surprised at not more than 62 grains of salt being found in the samples referred to.The s& W&B attributable to the hops, malt, and saccharine matter. Dr. Henry C. Bartlett gave similar evidence. John Scott, the defendant, was then sworn, and said he did not put a particle of salt in the beer. Mr. De Rutzen said that before he decided the case he wished to see the invoice delivered with the Ale contained hops, saccharine matter, and water.That brewing he superintended. No salt whatever came on the premises for brewing purposes. If it were used to a large extent, it would spoil the beer. beer t o the defendant. He adjourned the case for two weeks.-l&ms.200 THE ANALYST. At the adjourned hearing on the 31st December, Mr. Young submitted that the sale came within the meaning of the Act, and that there was no warranty delivered with the articles, but simply an invoice such as could not be sued upon at common law.The magistrate remarked that there must be a written warranty. Mr. Young said that according to the Act the warranty must state that the goods delivered were of “the nature, quality, and substance ” demanded by the purchaser, but what was sent with the goods in this case was a mere invoice, and not a warranty to prove that the goods were unadulterated.Dr. Auguste Duprd, examined by Mr. Young, said he was Lecturer on Chemistry at Westminster Hospital, Fellow of the Royal Society, President of the Society of Public Analysts, and Chemical Referee to the Medical Department of the Local Government Board.He had analysed beer, porter, and ale, and had an opportunity of seeing hundreds of different analyses made, with the special object of estimating the amount of salt contained in them. He should say that 63 grains of salt in a gallon of beer or porter was an excessive amount, such as could not possibly be derived from the malt, hops, and water employed. In a gallon of beer or porter the quantity of salt would be from 5 to 15 grains, and no more.Burtou strong ale contains from 16 to 18 grains. Cross-examined, the witness said, i f anyone swore that there was no salt put into the beer manufac- tured in the ordinary way, witness would not believe him, if he found 63 grains of salt per gallon in it. He should think the other person had made a mistake.When the law prohibited the use of salt in beer, the Excise Department (under his recommendation) would not allow proceedings to be taken for anything under 50 grains. After some further evidence had been given for the defendant, Dr. Bartlett being re-called, Mr. De Rutzen said:-One thing in this case is quite clear, and that is that the defendant did not adulterate this beer after he received it from the brewers.That is proved from what he himself said in the witness-box, and it is corroborated by Messrs. Truman & Hanbury, wbo bring forward their own scientific witnesses to say that the beer had not been adulterated by the defendant, for they not only agree with the public analyst as regards the quantity of salt he gives as the result of his analyses, but they go further acd say that if he had been a little more careful he would have found it contained a still greater proportion of salt than he did. That is how the matter stands with respect to the defendant.Now, then, comes this invoice, which is put in by Mr. Besley as a warranty. I confess I have some difflculty in saying that this is a warranty ; but, as it seems to me, it is quite sufficient of itself to lead the beer-seller who buys this beer to believe that, when he orders single X, double X, treble X, stout, or whatever it may be, and sells it to his customers in exactly the same state as he receives it, he is committing no offence.I have listened throughout this case to hear what exactly is the nature, quality, and substance of beer, as a general rule, I have heard over and over again that it is made from malt, hops, saccharine matter, and water, and I must say I have never heard such an amount of contradictory evidence as that which has been given in this case as to the quantity of salt that should be found in beer made from these articles.Taking the whole of the facts into consideration, I think I must dismiss this summons, Whether salt has or has not been introduced into this beer over and above what may be considered the natural quantity, I am not called upon to determine.I shall hold that this invoice is a sufficient warranty under the circumstances, and that the beer having been sold with this warranty, the defendant is absolved under section 25 of the Act, and therefore the summons must be dismissed.The only other question which remains for me is whether the prosecutor is not entitled to his costs. I shall certainly have to allow them if the defendant relies upon the warranty, unless he has given the prosecution notice of such intention, After some discussion the summon8 was dismissed, and ten guineas were allowed for the prosecutor’s costs. ADULTEBATION OF SEEm-Thomas Strangeways, Seed Merchant in Mile End, was summoned before the Lord Mayor for an infringement of the Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1869, in having, with intent to defraud, sold killed seeds, o r seeds in which the vitality or germinating power had been destroyed by artificial means.Mr. Besley, barrister, conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Walter Beard, solicitor, appeared for the defenee.Mr. Besley, in opening the case, said this was a very important matter, as it was the first instance in which the Act of Parliament had been put in operation. The Act recited that to ((kill ” seeds meant to destroy their vitality ; and that every person, with intent to defraud, who sold killed seeds, vould be duly punished. By the Act, killing or dyeing seeds was prohibited, as was also the sale of such seeds, and for the first offence the penalty imposed was not to exceed €5, and for the second or any subsequent offence $50 or under.The proceedings under the Act must be taken within twenty-one days. The defendant was well known as a practitioner in this kind of business, and had been heard to say that he could snap his fingers at the Act of Parliament.The killing of seed was done by steaming, and then drying on the kiln. The case was brought at the instance of the same gentlemen who promoted the Act of Parliament, and it was most desirable that such nefarious practices should be repressed. Mr. A. Francis said that on October 22nd, he saw W. Chapman, who produced a sampls bag containing killed charlock seed.It bore marks in defendant’s handwriting. He offered seven sacks at 6s. 6d. per bushel. He (witness) took away 8 small quantity. Eventually he agreed to take the seven sacks. Afterwards he saw Strangeways, who produced an invoice, but there was no name on it. Defendant said the seed would not grow-not a seed of it ; if it did he said he would put it on the kiln again for nothing, He further addedTHE ANALYST.20 1 that i n consequence of the law he could not put anything into writing. H e gave up the sample bag pro- duced by Chapman. H e said he had killed this for a party in the country, who had refused to accept delivery because bulk was not equal to sample. He did not want to fall out with the party, who was a good customer, and he wanted to sell it to some one else.The seed would do well for ‘‘ mixing ” purposes. Witness made another appointment about the matter, which he bpoke. Afterwards he paid defendant $9 10s. in gold for the seed bought. Mr. J. C. Ostler, of Wa!thamstow, proved having taken a sample of the seed in question to Mr. Sharpe. Mr. C. Sharp, Seed Merchant, of Sleaford, said with Mr. Burnell he was one of the promoters of the Act of Parliament.Its JondJfide use was to crush it for oil, and for the purposes of manure. When charlock was killed it was not fit for crushing, It had no coinmercial or agricultural purpose when it was killed. Killed seed had no value whatever, and mas only sold for mixing w’fth seed of a higher value. If the seed were not killed it would grow and betray the fraud.He had proved that in this case the seeds mere killed. Mr. Beard said Mr. Besley need not call further evidence. With regard to intent to defraud, he urged that Francis was not defrauded, inasmuch as he knew the seed was killed, and did not intend to sell it again ; fraud would not therefore be perpetrated on anyone else. The Lord Mayor : I n my mind the case is fully made out.I inflict the full penalty. It is a very serious matter. We pray for a good harvest, and such men prevent us from having it. The penalty in all was $5 for the offence of killing the seed, $5 for selling the killed seed, and 25 5s. costs. AT HAMMERSMITH, Robert Edwards, dairyman, of the Mall, Kensington, appeared to answer an adjourned summons, at the instance of the Kensington Vestry, for selling.milk adulterated with water. There was another summons taken out against Mary Sheen, of St. Clement’s Road, Notting Hill. Both had been adjourned in order that analyses of the samples might be made at Somerset House, the defendants being dissatisfied with the certificates of the Vestry’s Analyst. Mr. Harding, clerk of the Vestry, supported the summonses ; Mr.Hicketts appeared for the defendant Edwards. The certificate of Mr. Cleaver, the Vestry’s Analyst, stated that the sample of milk in the case of Edwards contained 8 per cent. of added water. The certificates of the analysts at Somerset IXouse stated that the milk contained not less than 4 per cent. of added water. I n the other case the certificate of Mr. Cleaver stated that the milk contained 15 per cent.of added water, but the one sent from Somerset House certified that the adulteration was 7 per cent. only. Mr. Harding said the difference arose in consequence of the analysts at Somerset House taking a lower standarc! for solids than that of the analysts of the metropolis. Mr. Bridge remarked that the difficulty which he saw was owing to the words in the Somerset House certificate, which stated that the fat wm equal to that found in milk of good quality.Looking at the opinion of the analysts a jury might say there was not any added water. I f the standard were allowed to pass, all the dairymen in the metropolis would adulterate their milk up to a certain amount. The analjsts at Somerset House took the standard of milk from a poor cow.Mr. Bridge agreed that mixing water with milk was a aerious matter, but the questionhe had to consider was, whether water had been added to the milk. At Greenwich police court, a grocer was charged with selling butter adulterated with 66 per cent. of foreign fats. The defendant was represented by Mr. Carttar, solicitor, who, without objecting to the statement of the analysis itself, raised a technical objection, that the certificate was insufficient, inasmuch as it did not state the weight of the sample when received by the analyst.After some argument the Case was adjourned for the attendance of the analyst. On the adjourned hearing, after the analyst had given his evidence, and a long argument on the part of Mr. Carttar, the magistrate, Mr.Blade, decided that it was necessary to insert the weight of the sample in the certificate, and in this case, as it was the first decision on the point, he allowed the amendment to be made in Court, and convicted the defendant, who mas fined 10s. and costs. A DISPUTED ANAI,YSIS.-AC the Bromsgrove Police Court, before Sir Richard Harington and Mr. Robert Smallwood, Thomas Fisher, of Worcester Street, was summoned on a charge of adulterating milk.MP. Buller, of Birmingham, represented the defendant.-Superintendent Tyler proved that he purchased a pint of new milk from defendant, divided and sealedit, gave one part to the defendant, and sent another part to the County Analyst. Dr. Swete, County Analyst, was examined, and produced a certificate of his analysis, which showed that the milk contained-total solids, 12.98; fat, 1.76 ; ash, -70.This gase a total of solids not fat, 11.22. He considered that new milk ought to contain more than 3 per cent. of fat, and no cow in health could give as small an amount as found in the sample. Mr. Buller, for the defence, submitted that the summons was taken out under the wrong section of the Act of Parliament, and argued that the milk was not sold “to the prejudice of the purchaser.’’ I t should hatve been taken out under the 9th section, which provided against the abstraction from the article sold, or any part of it.With respect to the analysis, he considered it imperfect, and hardly reliable. I t was important to consider what time the milk was taken from the cow, as it had been stated that constant dipping in the can caused a diminution of one-third of the cream when the vessel was half empty.He contended that the milk was sold exactly as it was taken from the COW. He also produced a sample bag of 69qrs. of the same kind of seed-another lot. Charlock seed was worth from 3s. 6d. to 4s. a bushel. He could not deny that defendant had sold the seed.I shall allow $5 5s. costs. Mr. Hardy said it was an important question for the public. He adjourned the summons to consider his decision.-Times.202 THE ANALYST. The defendant was called, and proved that he milked the cows himself, and the milk had not been out of his sight when he sold complainant the sample produced. Dr. Alfred Bostock Bill, analyst for the county of Warwick, was examined, and stated that he had analysed the sample of milk sent to him by defendant, and found it contained 9-22 solids not fat, 3.47 fat, and -69 ash.He agreed as nearly as possible with Dr. Swete as to the quantity of solids. If the sample had been sent to him in his official capacity he should have pronounced it a perfectly genuine milk. I n cross-examination he admitted that the sample was badly sealed, although the seal had not been tampered with, and it was impressed similar to the other samples.The Bench thought it possible the contents might have been tampered with by an interested person, and taking into consideration the discrepancies in the opiuions of the analysts, they thought the best course was to send the remaining sample, under the care of Col.Carmichael, to Somerset House, for analysis by the Government authorities. The case was adjoutned until the 13th February.- Birmingham Baily Gazette. ALLEGED & ~ L K ADULTERATION.-At the Stonehouse Police Court recently, John Luscombe, dairyman, Martin Street, Plymouth, was summoned before Major Trist and Mr. JV. E. Matthews, on a charge of selling adulterated milk.Captain Brutton, Superintendent of Policc, stated that on the 19th inst he saw the defendant with a horse an? cart in Union Street, Stonehouse, and purchased a pint and a half of raw milk of him for 3d. He put the milk into three bottles, gave the defendant one, kept one hin:self, and sent the third to the county analyst, Rfr Wynter Blyth, who certified that 10 per cent.of water had been added, and a small quantity of cream abstracted. The analyst observed that in each hundred parts there were-water, 89.10 ; caseine, &c., 8.19 ; ash, -62 ; milk fat, 2.09; total solids, 10.9 ; solids not fat, 8-81. The defendant said that the milk was perfectly pure. Some cows that he had yielded twenty quarts of milk a day, and others did not yield above five quarts a day.The milk of the latter was not so good as that of the former. He added that he was not satisfied with the certificate of the analyst, and wished the milk to be sent to Somerset House t o be analysed, The Bench adjourned the case until January l l t h , in order that the milk might be sent to Somerset House. On January l l t h the case again came on. Captain Brutton said that the Somerset House analyst3 -Messrs.J. Bell, R. Bannister, arid G. Helm, had reported that in each hundred parts of the sample there were :-solids not fat, 7'84 ; fat, 3.38 ; water, 88-78 ; and ash, 0 68. They also added that the amount of fat was fully equal to the average found in genuine milk of good quality. After making allowance for natural losses arising from the decomposition through keeping, the amount of solids not fat was lower than was found in genuine milk of low quality.From the consideration of these results they were of opinion that the milk could not be pronounced deficient in cream, but that it contained not less than 5 per cent. of added water. Mr, Edmonds, on behalf of the defendant, contended that as there were such discrepancies between the report of Mr.Wynter BIyth and the report of the Somerset House analysts, his client was entitled to an acquittal. The Bench said that as there were such discrepancies between the two reports of the analysts, they had decided not to convict the defendant. John Taverner, dairgman, King Street, Plymouth, was summoned for refusing to supply Capt. Brutton with milk.Capt. Brutton stated that on the 19th ult., he saw the defendant with his cart in East Street, and told him that he required some milk. The defendant replied that he had none for sale, and cammenced to drive off. Witness told him that he was bound to supply him with some, as he was the inspector, and the defendant again replied that he had none, and drove away. He was prepared to prove that the defendant, after leaving East Street, went into a shop and offered some milk for sale. Mr.Square, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, remarked that the section under which the defendant was summoned was to the effect that if any officer, inspector, or constable should apply to purchase any article of food, or any drug, exposed for sale by retail, he should tender the price for the quantity he required. This Captain Brutton did not do, and consequently the case must fall through. The Bench dismissed the summons,- TTeJtern Morning News. TEE GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (Limited), Horseferry Road, Westminster, was summoned before Mr. Bushby for having, on the 1 lth ult., supplied gas of a less illuminating power than allowed by the Act of Parliament. Mr. Fry appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the complainants; Mr. Bedford for the company. Mr Fry stated that on the 11th ult. the gas examiner at the Shoreditch station found that the gas delivered to the public from that station was only of tbe illuminating power of 14 candles 7-101,hs, the miiiimum allowed by the Act being 26 candles, rather more than one candle deficient. The penalty for this default, computed in accordance with the words of the 50th section, amounted to €74, and the proceedings were taken to obtain a warrant for the recovery of tbat amount. Mr. Redford, though not complaining of the act of the Board of Works as guardians of the public rights, said that, on behalf of the company, he wished it to be known that so far from this being at all usual tbere had been no complaints before. He produced certificates of the gas examiners for all the months of 1877, showing that the average illuminating power of the gas supplied during the year was 17-61, or more than a candle and a half in excess of that required. Mr. Bushby said his duty was merely executory, and the warrant for the payment of the $74 would issue,-Times, Total solids, 12.69. Mr. R. G . Edmonds appeared for the defendant.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780200198

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 203 COARESP ONDENCE. [The Editors are not responsible for the opinions of their Correspondents.] To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” Si~,-Will you allow me to poiilt out that Mr. Young’s process for the determination of sulphuric acid (Phar.tna. in yinegar (ANALY~T, No. 20) is identical with that described three years ago by Mr. Thresh ? Journ., 1875.) I remain, yours faithfully, OTTO HEHNER, F.C.S.To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” SIa,-With reference to Mr. Angell’s letter in your last issue, permit me to say that in my process for estimating sulphuric acid in vinegar there is an excess of chloride of barium in a neutral solution before estimating the total chloride, and also in estimating the chlorides after ignition, so that it is impossible for alkaline phosphates to be present.Mr. Angel1 will thus see he has found a mare’s nest. With regard to Mr. Hehner’s process, I did not hear of it until after my paper was read, and on looking for THE AN.4LYBT for August, 1876, I found it in its postal wrapper ; it had been delivered at a time when I was away from home on my holidays, was mislaid, and so escaped my notice. The process no doubt answers its purpose admirably as a quantitative method, but the qualitative test is insuficient, as on account of the frequent presence of sulphate of lime in vinegar, many samples which are free from uncombined mineral acids, give a neutral ash, and i n such cases it would be necessary to go on with the quantitative process.With regarri to the relative value of the two processes, I think most chemists would prefer making two volumetric estimations of chloride to one of alkali, certainly no more time is required.In Nr. Hehner’s process i t seems you must guess the quantity of mineral acids present before proceeding, and if you should be below the proper amount it is necessary to repeat the experiment until an alkaline ash is obtained, whereas in my process no repetition is needed.204 THE ANALYST.On reading Mr. Hehner's paper my attention was directed to a method devised by Mr. J. C. Thresh, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal for 3rd July, 1876, in which I find he has anticipated me, Mr. Thresh's process is shortly as follows :-After ascertaining the amount of chlorides present, a known quantity of a standard solution of chloride of barium is added to the vinegar, the whole evaporated to dryness, burnt, the ash washed out with water, boiled with a slight excess of bicarbonate of soda, filtered, and the chlorides estimated volumetrically in the filtrate ; the loss of C1 being calculated as He SOa.I t wili be seen that the principle of the process is identical with mine, but differs in detail, and I may state that the use of a standard solution of chloride of barium is unnecessary, and that more accurate results are obtained by applying the standard solution of nitrate of silver to the ash in the presence of the insoluble matter, and as little water as is necessary to wash the contents of the crucible into a beaker.I know by repeated experiment that unburnt carbon and sulphate of barium, which has been heated with chloride, will retain considerable quantities of chlorides even after what would be considered excessive washing.Plaistow, E., W. C. YOUPGG. I am, Sir, yours etc., lltlt January, 1878. Mr. Wynter Blyth, of Barnstaple, reported a sample of milk to be adulterated with water, and on the hearing of the case, a report of which appears on another page, the duplicate sample waa referred to the chemists at Somerset House.Mr. Blyth wrote to them, enclosing copies of his duplicate analysis of his portion of the sample in question and requested them to supply him with a copy of their results. The following is a copy of the reply sent to him ; it seems to us of sufficient importance to publish it, as showing the views which the Inland Revenue Chemists take with reference to milk standards :- Laboratory, Somerset House, London, W.C., January 3rd; 1878. DEAR SIR,--I duly received your letter of the 28th ult., and you may rest assured that we will do our utmost to arrive at a just conclusion on the Stonehouse appeal, We operate with weighed quantities, and all our results are determined by weight.We duplicate the experiments, and we are not satisfled if the results differ by more than a tenth of a grain. The position which we occupy being entirely a neutral one, you will no doubt agree that we could not pupply either side with our results, the Magistrates being the only persons with whom we have to deal. I have seen Mr. Carter Bell's paper on milk, and the result of our experience differs materially from his.If you should be in town and call, I shall be happy to show you the results of the analyses of upwards of 300 samples obtained from various parts of the country. The cows were milked in the presence of an assistant from this laboratory, and we can vouch for the genuineness of the samples. I am, yours faithfully, Dr. Blyth. J. BELL. Mr. J.West Knights has been appointed Public Analyst for Cambridge, Cambridge- shire, Huntingdonshire, and the Isle of Ely, in the place of Professor Apjohn, deceased. Mr. James M. Milne, Public Analyst for Einning Park and Dunfermline, has been appointed Public Analyst for Fifeshire. Mr. A. Wynter Blyth, Public Analyst for the County of Dcvon, has been appointed Public Analyst for the Borough of Totnes, on terms similar t o those of the county.Mr. J. Walker Montgomery has been appointed Public Analyst for the County of Cumberland. The Grocer says that last week, for the fourth time, the Town Ccuncilof Dover received a letter from the Local Government Board, urging them to appoint a Public Analjst. The Council ordered tbe receipt of the letter to be acknowledged, but took no action in t.he matter.PUBLIC ANALnsT.-The Town Council of Faversham have had under consideration a letter from the Local Goverment Board, calling their attention to the fact that they had not appointed n public analyst for the borough, under section 10 of the Sale of Food and Drugs' Act, and that it was deeirable to give effect to the intentions of the Legislature. It was proposed and seconded by Councillors Wyles and Fagg, two grocers, that an analyst should not be appointed. Alderman Johnson pointed out that town councils which evaded Acts of Parliament lbst weight and inthence, and that the Council would probably be compelled to appoint an analyst if they did not do so voluntarily. Nevertheless, the resolution referred to was carried by seven votes against two.--2"imes.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN878020203b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 205 NOTES OF THE MONTH. Since the replies given by our Society to Dr. Rottenburgh, on behalf of the German Go~erninrnt, were published in this journal, our amusing friend the Chemist and Druggist, has printed a series of replies to the same queries on behalf, as i t says, of the victims. Unfortunately we ham not space to reproduce them in all their unique entirety; but it is exceedingly flattering to our yanity, as a body of men, that we should have been able to actually produce six answers out of twenty-seven which even the great torpedo of Crinnon Street cannot find heart t o blow us up about.The champion of the (‘ victims ” does not, however, stop at this negative praise, but it actually says, referring to answer 2’7, We thank the Analysts for this reply, especially the last clause of it.We have onlyto add that an analyst should also possess so much modesty as should enable him t o recognize, first, that the science of chemistry is not personified in perfection in his individuality ; and, secondly, that he is simply the analyst, and not, in addition, the prosecutor and the judge.” Why this is exactly what we have been all along trying to get our friend’s grand intellect to grasp.The analyst is not the prosecutor, and consequently not responsible for the action taken by others. Where, then, is the ground for all the diatribes we have read charging analysts as being alone respomible, and entirely to blame for the failure of prosecutions. To the question as to publication of offender’s names (to which our Society answered, “ Yes, at the discretion of the court ”) the victim’s friend answers, ‘ l Yes, if we can have some guarantee that the court possesses such discretion.” What guarantee could ever be had of this, urless we made the judge refer t o the C’l~eiiaist altd Druggist before ordering publication ! Unfortunately for our friend, the Legislature mill not go so far, and we hope that he also mill possess so much modesty as t o be brought t o recognize, first, that the whole science of interpreting chemical results, and deciding on disputed standards, “is not personified in perfection in his individuality”; and, secondly, that he is only a trade journalist, and n u t , in addition, both defendant and judge. I n dealing with answer 23, in which our Society recommends the appointment of a body of referees, each possessing some special knowledge of a particiilar set of substances from having made a study of, and written about them, instead of the present reference to the Inland Revenue chemists, the victim’s friend says,--“ There is no reason whatever to imply that the Inland Revenue chemists have been in any degree unfit for their duty, QU contraire.” Doubtless the chemists at Somerset House will fully appreciate the valiie of this most disinterested compliment, and when we consider the little bit of French thrown in, why they must feel flattered indeed.On the same principle that the great king of old kept, a disagreeable party, who continually reminded him that he was mortal and must soon die, we print the following extract from a paper representing the greatest of the victims, to wit, the public, who buy grease for butter, water for milk, and take daily doses of copper in their pickles and peas, lest the court of reference should begin to fancy themselves immortal.‘l The Government analysts a t Somerset House-apparen tly an utterly irresponsible body-have paralysed the action of the public analysts by declaring that as much as 68 grains of salt in ale was legitimate, and that milk might yield only an absurdly low206 THE ANALYST.quantity of solids, and yet not be adulterated. The result will be that standards muRt be fixed by Act of Parliament, and nobody is more competent to say what they should be than the Society of Public Analysts.”--E%ho.Nr. Clearer has been more successful than most analysts in reference t o cases of milk adulteration, where the amount of added water is small, for the Somerset House chemists only differ from his results by a very small percentage. It would be interesting t o knoiv what Nr. Cleaver’s figures were, and what standard of milk adulteration he adopted. V e will gladly publish any communication from him on this subject.We are afraid our worthy President was somewhat too sanguine in his remarks at the anniversary meeting, as to the cessation of personal attacks on analysts, and if anyone thinks that the day for such attacks has gone by, thcy will be speedily undeceived if they turn to the last number of the Country Brewers’ Gazette, where, among other things, it is seriously stated that no public analyst is competent to undertake the analysis of beer, in order to determine whether it contains salt, unless he also possesses knowledge of the actual process of brewing beer-in other words, he must serve his apprenticeship as a brewer, aud then turn public analyst ! The next meeting of the Society of Public Analysts will take place a t Burlington House, Picoadilly, on Wednesday, the 20th February, a t 8 o’clock, when Dr. H.W. Hake mill be ballotted for, and Mr. H. P. Harris will be proposed, as members ; and amongst other papers Mr. Wynter Blyth will read one On the Patty metamorphosis of gaseine in Nilk and Cheese.” RECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS. The following specifications have been published during the past month, and can be obtained from the Great Seal Office, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, London.1876. Name of Patentee. NO. 2085 A. Budenberg and F. Hurter .., 2090 C. H. Gil! . . . . . . . . . . . . 2094 A. Af. Clark . . . . . . . . . 2106 T. & T. B. Redwood . . . . . . 2106 J. H. I\’. Biggs . . . . . . . . . 2147 F.Delori . . . . . . . . . . . . 2182 J. M. Granville . . . . . . . . .2183 M. K, G. Lieber . . . . . . . . . 2249 M. H. Strong . . . . . . . . . 2260 B. & W. Foster . . . . . . . . . 2257 A. C. Collineau & 31. E. Savigny ... 2327 W. Black and D. Hill .. .,. 2362 H. W. Wallis and C. F. Claus ... 2645 J. C. Mewburn . . . . . . . . . 2839 P. Jablochkoff . . . . . . . . . Tltle of Patent. Prlce. Pressure Vacuum and Speed Gauges . . . . . . . . .8d. Apparatus for Moulding and Pressing Sugar . . . . . 10d. Electric Light Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8d. Manufacture of Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. Apparatus for Manufacturing Salt and Carbonate of Soda - Measuring, Controlling, and Registering Juices of Beet Root, Alcohol, bc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d. Thermometers and Spirometers . . . . . . . .. . . . 4d. Manufacture of Soda and Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. Manufacture of Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d. Extracting Tannin Matter from Old Scrap, or Waste Leather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. Process of Greening Preserved Vegetables . . . . . . 4d. Manufacture of Sulphates of Sodaand Potash . . . . . . 6d. Purification of Gas, &o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. Pressing and Filtering Beet Root Juice, $0. . . . . . . 6d. Distributing and Increasing with Atmos herio Electricity Currents from a Single Source of LP ectricity ’ for sup- plying Several Lighting Centres . . . . . . . . . 4d. ~. BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. The Chemist and Druggist; The Brewers’ Guardian; The British Medical Journal; The Medical Examiner ; The Medical Times and Gazette ; The Pharmaceutical Journal ; The Sanitar Record ; The Medical Record ; The Miller ; The Anti-Adulteration Review ; Jcurnal of Applieg Scienoe ; I h e Couiitry Brewers’ Gazette.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780200205

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC