摘要:

3 14 THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. SELLING FICTICIOUS BUTTER.-- Ann Southall, grocer, of Portobello, was charged with selling adulterated butter. On the 29th of April, Samuel Toy, assistant to Mr. Horder, Inspector under the Adulteration Act, visited the Defendant’s shop, and purchased a quantity of butter. A portion of it was sent to Mr. Jones, the analyst, who certified thas it did not contain a trace of butter, but W- a ficticiobs article.Mr Spooner : You shall not sell such a thing, poisoning people. Mr. Spooner : YOU will be fined 25 and costs. BuTTERINE.-At the Liverpool Police Court, Mr. WilliamHolmes, provision dealer, WaB Sum. moned for selling butterine as butter, Inspector Ibbs stated that on May 31 he visited the defendant‘s shop and asked to be served with a pound of butter, which he received and paid 6d.for. He then told the person who served him who he was, and that he should have the butter analysed, and the reply was made that it was ‘( all right,” as it was labelled, and witness’s attention was called to a label on a tub of butter outside the shop with a large figure of 6 printed on it, and underneath in small print the word “ buttcrine.” The tub from which witness was served was not labelled, neither was the paper in which the sample was wrapped.Mr. Atkinson said that Dr. Brown, the borough analyst, had analysed the sample, and reported that it was “ perfectly clean and wholesome, and was a good substitute for butter. Mr. Raffles : Then why do you prosecute them? Mr. Atkinson: We prosecute them because it must not be sold as butter.Mr. Raffles (To Inspector Ibbs) : I suppose you knew perfectly well that you could not get butter for 6d. a pound. Mr. Raffles : What! pure butter ? Inspector Ibbs : Yes. Mr. Raffles remarked that the person who sold pure butter at that price ought to get plenty of custom. Mr. Segar, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the spirit of the Act of Parliament had not been infringed, and said that the defendant had gone to Dr.Brown, and the latter had told him that he ought to affix a label on the article. Mr. Raffles said that if the defendant had put a paper round the article and stated that it was butterine, he would hare been all right; but he had not done so. B e must pay 5s. and costs. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. - SANDYS o.SMALL. - In the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Westminster, the Lord Chief Justicc and Mr. Justice Mellor, heard the case of Bandys 9. Small, which was an appeal from a decision of the ‘ustices of Derbyshire in a case where defendant, a publican at Langley Mills, was charged with setling wbiskey adulterated with water in contravention of the terms of the Food Adulteration Act.The appellant is inspector of nuisances for the county of Derby ; and in March last he sent a man named Slack to the Defendant’s premises, where he purchased half a pint of whiskey, which was afterwards found mixed with water, upon which the defendant was proceeded against under Section 6. The magistrate, however, dismissed the case on the ground that the terms of the Act were complied with by the publican, inasmuch as he dis- played in conspicuous positions in his bar-parlour and smoking room, cards containing the intimation that all spirits sold in that establishment were mixed; and, further, that the inspector, and not some one on his behalf, was the person to have purchased the whiskey, i f it was alleged he was rejudiced by the sale.The justices now submitted a special case for the decision of the Court, E r .Wills, Q.C., appearing for the appellant (the inspector), and Mr. Mellor, Q.C., for the respondent (the publican). The Lord Chief Justice remarked that the inspector was to see that no frauds were practised by the sale of inferior articles. But when the inspector knew that no fraud waa practised or attempted to be practised, was not the prosecution a vexatious one? Mr.Wills : The man swore that he did not. The Lord Chief Justice : He swears by the card in saying that he did not see it “at the moment” he bou ht it. The man bought it with his eyes open, and I cannot imagine any moral delinquenoy. Mr, Wills: Then 5 shall ask to have the case remitted, to have the fact found out whether the inspector had notice.The Lord Chief Justice : Then Section 14 says that the person purchasing the article with the intention of having it analysed shall “forthwith” notify his intention of having it analysed by a public analyst. Now, he did not do that; he sent another man to make the purchase. Mr. Justice Mellor : And there might be tampering qith the article in the meantime.The man who went in had a sort of 4’ concealed principal ” in the inspector. The Lord Chief Justice : I do not see how this inspector is ‘‘ prejudiced ; ” he did not drink the whiskey; Mr. Wills : Then Section 13 is a dead letter; it abolishes the o5cer of health. The Lord Chief Justice; There are two classes of persons to prosecute-a member of t4e public, and the public analyst. Section 6 gives power to the purchaser to prosecute where an offence has been committed ; and Section 13 gives power to the impector to have it analysed ; but it creates no offeace.I am of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. I should be very sorry indeed if in so holding I The defendant said she bought it for genuine butter. Defendant said Toy asked for butter at a Is.a pound. Inspector lbbs : Well, I get it higher up the road for 6d. a pound.THE ANALYST. 315 thought I was doing anything to diminish the efficacy of a most useful Act of Parliament-useful, at all events, in this sense, and to this extent, that i t is intended to prevent frauds being committed by the sellers of adulterated articles to the poorer classes of consumers, who have no means of ascertaining whether they really do get the article that ought to be supplied to them, and upon whom, independently of the protection that this Act gives, there is no doubt that very serious frauds were committed, which the Act to a great extent has been the means of preventing.Still, we must see that we do not unduly and unnecessarily interfere with the relation of seller and bnyer to the prejudice of either, aud I think we should be doing that if we extend the case in which both parties are perfectly aware of the terms on which they are dealing-if we were to extend to such cues provisions which were intended to apply only to clandestine fraudulent transactions on the part of the seller to the prejudice of the buyer.I t seems to me that the true construction of Section 6 and the provisions which immediately follow it i g this : that when a seller professes to sell a particular article, and he sells that article altered in some manner by the admixture of smething else, it must be taken that he does it to the prejudice of the purchaser, unless the fact is duly and sutticiently brought to the knowledge of the purchaser; but if the alteration of the article by the admixture of something else, as the alteration of spirits by the admixture of water, is brought to the knowledge of the customer, and the customer chooses to deal on that footing and purchase accordingly, it never can have been intended that the dealing as carried on to the satisfaction of both parties should be interfered with.But, on the other hand, if the seller chooses to sell under the character of a given denomination of food, whether in the shape of drink, food, or drug, he chooses to sell the article with a aertain admixture, it must be upon him-it is incumbent upon him-to prove that the purchaser knew what he waa purchasing in respect of the quality of the article.The statute has provided him with means of insuring himself protection against the possibility of the presumption which otherwise presents itself operating to his prejudice ; for the statute has expressly provided that if he in any way &xeo or attaches to the thing which he sells a printed or written notice of the alteration which has been made in its quality, he then gets rid of the possibility of being charged with fraud within Section 6.If he does not have recourse to that, then, I think, it is incumbent upon him to prove that the presumption which otherwise would attach to the sale is in the particular instance unfounded. If he can show that he communicated, whether by this means or by that, that he brought home distinctly and expressly to the knowledge of the customer that the quality of the article had been affected by the admixture of some foreign ingredients, then he does not commit an offence within Section 6, because he does not sell the altered article to the prejudice df the purchaser. Supposing that a man stiick over the bar where the spirit is sold, in clear and unmistakable terms, in words printed in sufflciently large capital letters, “ The thing which I sell here is so many per cent.below proof,” he would not, in my opinion, come within the 6th Section, although he might not affix the label to the gin or anything else which was sold, because it was not sold to the prejudice of the purchaser. The customer knows that he can get it cheaper by taking it in that way. I think, therefore, in the present inatanoe them was no proof that the purchaser did not perfectly well know, or the man employed by the purchaser, that there was a notice in the bar and tap-room where spirits were sold that the spirits were not sold pure in quality.Mr. Wills says there may be some doubt about it, and that is the ground on which we are asked to show a favour to the respondent, I think in this matter, it being perfectly clear, beyond all possibility or dispute, that the appellant had in this instance stuck about in various parts, in a manner perfectly conspicuous to all customers, that he did not profess to sell spirits pure or up to proof, we will not send it back for the sake of the appellants, since in this particular instance we should be harassing the defendants unnecessarily, the man not having committed any offence against the statute.That being so, and as I think there is no offence within the meaning of the 6th Section, it seems unnecessary to consider whether the provisions of the statute as to the notice of the intended analysis being given, have been substantially complied with. Mr. Justice Mellor: I am of the same opinion. I should have heen glad if the magistratea had specifically found the matter which Mr.Wills contends ie rather to be inferred from what has taken place than not. They have not so done, and I agree generally in the construction of the section which has been put on it by my lord. I believe in a case where, under the circumstances that notice was given that gin or whiskey, or any spirit sold a t that public-house ’were all of them mixed as the notice itself specified, not specifying the exact amount, but in large letters stating “ all spirits sold here are mixed ”-then, under sections 8 and 9, the notice is put opposite the bar window ; and although it is said in the case that the man who bought the spirits ‘( at the moment ” did not gee it, certainly I should infer that though he did not “ a t the moment ” see it, it must have the meaning that at some decided moment he might not, but that he saw directly after, and before he paiu the money, and before any notification could be given to the party of the intention to submit the matter t o analysis.Then I think that it ie not a case one would desire to send down again. The facts on any future occasion may be gone into more fully and more specifically, but in the way in which the magistrates have submitted it they seem to raise questions rather affecting a proviso than affecting the general section wdich raises the offence.Certainly with regard to that it may be a question. If tbis man intends to Both parties are left perfectly free to deal on that footing.31 6 THE ANALYST. protect himself absolutely, I think it would be a more prudent course, wnabver the result of this cnse, that he should actually deliver B notification-a printed paper that it ie so-and-so, and not to stick it on the bottle or post it up, but, in handing the article over to the purehaaer, t o deliver the notice. I don’t wish to give any definite opinion on these points, because in my view it is unnecessary, for I agree with my lord that we are justified in coming to the conclusion that the offence was not actually committed, Under these circumstancee, we ought not to send it down again, and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. The appeal was then dismissed, but without costs.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300314

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

31 6 THE ANALYST. NOTES OF THE MONTH. Our contemporary, the Chemist and Druggist, which of course was down on Mr. Allen in an article headed ‘‘ AlzaZysm,” based mainly on the Selby flour case, now states that it was not i t s intention to impute malice to Zr. Allen, and it does not think t h article will bear that construction.’ Mr. Allen was not malicious, he only (we quote literally) (‘ prided himself on the number of convictions he can secure,” and there is scarcely any business he has not taken in hand with the view of reforming.” It is a comfort to think that the author had no occult intention in making such state- ments, but i f there be not malice in the article we fail t o understand the English language.We specially note that while the detraction (P) was published in a leading article, the a?ology is only printed as a paragraph at the end of Mr.Allen’s letter. Thus a trade journal will try to take an analyst’s character away, but has not the courage when fairly met to support its innuendos. If instead of always abusing public analysts the Chemist and Druggist would turn round on those undercutting (so-called) wholesale houses which imperil the honour of the honest retailer by selling him trash, after alluring him by low prices, it would be performing a real good t o the trade it claims to represent. But, unfortunately, it is not the poor retailers that are the best advertisers; so how can a trade journal be expected to look after them when it can indulge in the more profitable -more congenial-and more sensational luxury, of stabbing in the back a class of men whose duties are d s c u l t and whose position is irksome.Of course not. Talking about analysts leads to a curious reflection. According to the trade journals the analyst alone is responsible for all prosecutions, and nothing is said against the inepector who actually buys, or the local authority which institutes and carries on the prosecution.Would they, we wonder, give any sympathy to an analyst who in the exercise of that discretion which they always presume he Possesses, advised his vestry that although a certain article was not exactly what it was supposed to be, yet they should not prosecute because a trade custom had long consecrated the sophistication 3 Would they also be prepared to find that the analyst received for his trouble a curt intimation that such remarks were not his business-the vestry alone would decide and that in future he was simply to state the composition of articles? If such a case had gone on and been dismissed, as it very likely would have been, would this have been another 4‘ incompetent analyst ” ? Will some of our friends, such as the Chemist and DrHggist, kindly advise how an analyst should act in such a case so as to escape abuse from either one side or the other, or from both afterwards ? Here is another curious reflection.Analytical chemists are at best only men, and Suppose, then, an analyst gives a report which is a matter of orrare eat hzcmanzcm.THE ANALYST. 317 opinion, and on the 8ame rreaults the Somerset House chemists give a different opinion. Is not that a thing which happens every day in our law courts? Is there, therefore, a journal deyoted to the abuse of vice-chancellors every time their decision is reversed on appeal? On the same principle why will not the Chemist and Druggist devote a column to racy innuendos against the judge who decided against their side in the prescribing druggist’s case, supposing there should on appeal be a reversal in their favour.Surely what is sauce for the goose of an analjst, is also that for other ganders ! There is one thing, however, to be said in favour of the Chemist and Drzcggist, which is, that it makes no pretence of impartiality, or of being more than a good trade journal, giving the best of practical information, and were it not for its craze on the subject of analysts, it would be an excellent journal of its class.But, what shall be said of the Pharmaceutical Jownal, supposed to be the impartial organ of a great society- setting itself up for a scientsc print-edited by a person who is himself an analytical chemist,-and yet lending itself t o a system of traduction. In it we have articles directed to cast aspersions on analysts holding public appointments, and under that guise of science and impartiality, secretly bolfitering up adulteration.A very fine specimen of the method of throwing discredit on his confrkres was exhibited in a leaderette as to selling decomposed spirits of nitre. How would the editor like us to hint in the same manner that his certificate of analysis would, if tested in court, be found wanting? Such writing may be racy, but it is decidedly unprofessional.A discussion has, it seems, been going on in New York as to the desirability of the so-calied butterine or oleomargarine as an article of food, and we have read ~l report, accompanied by analysis, stated to have come from the I‘ Department of Agriculture at Washington ” upon its properties.We are not aware who the eminent gentleman was in whose hands the sample was placed, but his competence to deal with the subject may be judged by the following extract from his report. He says--“ the composition of the material shows no marked deviation from that of ordinary butter as found in the market, and there is no evidence of the presence of anything injnrious or abnormal.” The analysis on which this statement is founded reports the estimation of the total fat, casein, salt, sugar (P) and water.As, therefore, no attempt has been made to look into the character of the fat by the estimation of the fatty acids, it is not astonishing that nothing abnormal was found. The best of the joke is, however, yet to come, as the analyst then proceeds to say-“ I also give below an aaalysis of butter found upon record, not havifig had time to complete one myself as yet t!) After this statement it is not astonishing to find that the so-called analysis of the butter is also based upon the same lines.I n conclusion, this authority says, when comparing butter and oleomargarine-“ by these it will be seen that while the constituent parts are identical, there is a considerable variation as to quantities, especially as regards water and salt.” We trust that American chemists are not generally so far behind the age.On the other hand we have a statement in the American Dairymarc in which the writer shows a great distinction between the two articles, and urgeR upon the attention of those interested, the important fact, that the butterine may become the carrier of morbid secretions, germs of disease, and embryos of parasites ; especially when pork fat is318 THE ANALYST. employed.He bases this warning on the fact that owing to the low temperature a t which the fat is melted it is virtually raw. To this the manufacturers answer that no pig’s fat is ever used.AS far as we see the truth lies somewhere between the two statements. That butterine is identical with butter in composition is simply nonsense ; but that it is an agreeable and as a rule harmless form of preparing fat for consumption must be admitted, and there would be no objection t o it if provision dealers would only be honest and cease to sell it as butter. We have often pointzd out the effects of locality on adulteration, but this month we have another unique illustration.Two persons are summoned for selling butterine as butter. One defendant alleged that, she bought it as butter, so Bhe was mulcted ;E5. The other defendant knew that it was butterine, although he sold it as butter, and he had only five shillings to pay, Therefore the greater offender has the least penalty, and Portobello is better protected than Liverpool.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, 1877. Name of Patentee. Title of Patent. Prlce. KO. 4359 W. L. Wise . . . . . . Disoxygenising Atmospher?c Air . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 6d. 4465 R. Rawlinson . . . . . . Treating Roue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. 4542 P. Jensen . . . . . . Isinglass, Gelatine aud Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. 4558 A. M. Clark . . . . . . Hydraulic Limes and Cements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. 4453 R. Taylor ... Cleaning Tin or Terne Plates, &c. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 6d. 4618 H. B. Condy.. ... Treatment of Alumiuous Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. 4638 L. T. Froideville and \ Anti-ca!careous Composition for preventing incrustation in Steam 1 2d. 4642 R. Werdermann ... Phosphoretted Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. 4671 J. H. Jonson ... Production of Saccharate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 4672 J.H. Jonson ... Purification and Treatment of Saccharate of Lime . . . . . . 4d. 4769 C. D. Abel . . . . . . Treatment of Hydro-carbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. 4479 P. Aube ... Manufacture of Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gd. 4682 H. H. Murdoch ... Manufacture and Refining of Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d. 4717 A, Jay . . . . . . Mixture for preventing incrustation in Boilers .. . . . . . . . 2d. 4731 R. Calme . . . . . . Blasting Powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. 7765 J’ Swan and B’ ’’ ) Purification of Opium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. 1878. 4286 J. H. Kidd . . . . . . Treating Refuse and Bewave to obtain Manure . . . . . . . . . 6d. 4491 F. M. Lyte . . . . . Manufacture of White Lead .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413. 4420 J. F. i;. Kromschroder Carburetting and Purifying Coal Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d. 4580 M. K. G. Lieber ... Manufacture of Soda and Potash, &c. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. H. Taponier . . . . . . J Boilers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proctor . . . . . . 314 W. V. Wilson ... Manufacture of Cyanogen products from Gas residues . . . . . . 2d. SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. The next meeting will take place at Dublin, during the meeting of the British Association, and will be held a t the Royal College of Surgeons, Stephen’s Green. BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. Aids to Chemistry; Pholiphates in Nutrition, Anderson ; Payne’s Industrial Chemistry, Paul ; The Chemist and Drug ist; The Brewers’ Guardian; The British Medical Journal; The Medical Examiner; The Medical Ames and Gazette; The Pharmaceutical Journal; The Sautary Record; The Medical Record; The Miller; The Anti-Adulteration Review ; Journal of Applied Science; The Country Brewers’ Gazette; The Dairyman; The American Dairyman ; The Practitioner. ERRATA.-Analyst for July, page 290, line 8 ; for 1~62, read ’162,

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8780300316

出版商:RSC    

年代:1878

数据来源: RSC