摘要:

T H E ANALYST. OCTOBER, 1883. THE STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PETROLEUM. SOME important evidence was given in reference to the storage and distribution of petroleum in London and Liverpool, before fhe Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to consider the Petroleum Bill. From the evidence of Mr. Phillips, of the firm of Messrs. Ingall, Phillips & Go., the prin- cipal wharfingers of petroleum and other oils in London, it would appear that the storage capacity of that firm alone in Londonis equivalent to between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000gallons. They are at present building new works, the tank space in which is to be 160,000 gallons. The older form of tanke are arranged partly underground, rising to a height of about 4 feet above ground; this portion is protected by a wall and about 3 feet of concrete, and the roof is formed of a layer of chalk about 1 foot thick.I n the more modern form of storage tank the eovering is arranged so that a current of air can pass over the surface of the stored petroleum. According to the practical experience of this witness, it would seem that a tank open to the air is more suitable for storage than one which is closed ; in the latter case, the manholes are protected by a layer of earth. The reason for this, we should imagine, is not far to seek. In the one case, the more volatile portions are sealed up ready to take fire, either by the approach of a light, or from a sudden or undue rise of temperature ; while in the case of the open tanks the current of air carries off the volatile vapours as fast as they are generated.As nothing is stored but the usual class of petroleum with a fairly high flashing point, the loss by evaporation is not sufficiently sensible to weigh against the greater safety brought about by this system. In Liverpool, the storage tanks are excavations made in the solid red sandstone rock, one side being built with concrete and brick. The following description taken from the evidence of Mr. Bignell gives a clear idea of the mag- nitude to which the American petroleum trade has attained in that plttce. The stores are situated on the east and south side of theHerculaneum Branch Dock-those on the east, 49 in number, being at a distance of 102 feet, and thoseon the south, 11 in number, a distance of 60 feet from the dock margin, They are all formed by excavation in the solid red sandstone rock, which in this position rises to a height of from 45 to 60 feet above the level of the quay, The stores on the east quay are of the uniform internal dimensions of 51 feet by 20 feet, and those on the south average 37 feet by 20 feet, the height in each case being 19 feet, The rock piers separating the stores are 5 feet in thickness. In the construction of these stores special attention has been paid to the requirements of the fire insurance companies.The sill of the doorway is tit a height of about 5 feet above the level of the floor, and the walls are coated with Portland cement to the same height, and no connection whatever has been provided between the different stores, so that in the case of fire or leakage the whole contents of any store would be retained within itself.All doom are of iron.166 THE ANALYST. Mr. Dowling, of tbe firm of Messrs. Pinchin, Johnson & Co., who are refiners of crude petroleum, stated from his own knowledge that some retailers in the poorer suburbs Of London, sell as lunch as 200 gallons of oil on Saturdtly eveulng. The product with which Mesers. Pinchin, Johnson & Go. deal is the crude article. It is of a dark color, and a Ppecifio gravity of 800. On being submitted to the usual form of yurlfication, namely fractional distillation, the following are the results :- Petroleum Spirit , . . ... ... ... 15 per cent. Kerosine (Petroleum, or Burning Oil) ... 65 9 , Carbon Water, and loss by decomposition ... 10 ,, Heavy Lubricating Oil .. . ... ... 10 y y The light petroleum epirit has to a great extent taken the pIace of solvent naptha, and is a well known commercial article, being used for the production of lighting gas, and as a solvent in connection with the manufacture of waterproofing, and the various forms of floorcloth, linoleum, &e., trade8 which have only been dovelopecl during the last few years. Mr. Dowling also stated that, om makhg an impecticfn of the ruined premises of a burnt warehouse, in which had been stored resin, turpentine, pitch, tar, &c., and also the usual dass of burning petroleum, that only 10 per cent, of the latter had been damaged by the fire, the remainder being intact, and was afterwards sold into consumption, although some of the barrels bore h e marks and showed evidence of having been subjected to a fair degree of heat.It is clearly evident from the above, that the storage of petroleum, providing always that the lighter portions have been abstracted from it, is perfectly safe, if only reasonable precautions are taken, which suggest themselves t o any one who has a fair knowledge of the chemical nature of the hydro-carbon with which he is dealing. That this is so, and that the subject is better understood in the Uuited States (the headquarters of the petroleum trade), is evident, or otherwise accidents would be continually occurring, bearing in mind the enormous consumption of this material in the east, and iu all countries where the use of gas is pre- cluded, on account of its expense.The question naturally arises-is ordinary burning petroleum of specific gravity 810, and flashing above a temperature of 73O Ahel test,, more dangerous for storage and public use, than the millions of cubic feet of gas which are con- tained in gasometers in and around London ? We think not. Petroleum of this kind will not ignite and burn (without the intervention of a wick) except at a temperature con- siderably above that of boiling water. Of course, petroleum vapour when mixed with air is as explosive and quite as easily ignited as ordinary coal gas ; but the difference between the two, is this-the vapour of petroleum when the liquid is properly and carefully stored, is produced in small quantity, and is rapidly disseminated into the atmosphere, whereas gas from coal is stored and distributed in such a way as to render it liable to admixture with a few volumes of atrnoapheric air, in which case it is violently explosive.So long as the whole of the vapour of petroleum is removed from the surface of the liquid in the tanks no danger is likely to arise from the formation of explosive compounds ; and, in tanks built partially underground and properly constructed, the temperature of the liquid is such that only a comparatively small quantity of vapour is generated-and again the petroleum risk is confined to the area where this substance is stored, whereas the gas risk is not only present ah the works, but throughout the whole distriot where it is distributed.THE ANALYST. 167 On the whole, we think, that providing ordinary aare is taken in the inspection of the oils as they are importod into this country, and the present regulations as to storage effioiently and properly aarried out, that no further parliamentary legislation is called for. P4roleum is redy not so dangerous as turpentine, or many of the vsgetable oils, which when spread out in layers absorb oxygen from the atmosphere, generating sufficient heat to cause them to spontaneously ignite.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8830800165

出版商:RSC    

年代:1883

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 167 ON THE WORK DONE BY PUBLIC ANALYSTS DURING 1882 UNDER THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. By G. W. WIGNIR. FROM various caums the annual summary of the results of the Public Analysts' Work has been delayed this year, aad as 8ome returns are still miesiug the analysis cannot be as com- plete as usual. The preparation of these returus is attended with a good deal of labour, and at times it is impossible that some men can find .lime for it. Thanks are due to those who have done so. The year which has passed has wilnessed great stiides in the success of the anti- ttdulteration work in tho United Btattes, and in France ; but elsewhere the condition remains almost as before. The state of things in this country will be judged best from the following facts and averages. One step, the necessity for whioh was urged last year, has been obtained by the action of the Manohester Magi&mtes in calling on the referee chemists at Somerset House to atfend to endeavour, though unsuccessfully, to support one of their certificates.The provisions for the colleution of samples in larger numbers from the more populous districts still remain the great necessity to the proper working of the Act. The number of returns received of samples ftnalysed and reported upon during the last eight yews have been as follows :- SampIes Samples Peroent age Year. Distriots, Emmineb Adulterated. Adulteiated. 1875-6 .. :. 109 .. 15989 .. 2895 .. 1810 1877 .. .. 127 .. 11943 .. 2371 .. 17.70 1878 .. .. 168 .. 15107 .. 2505 .. 16-58 1879 . . . . 212 . . 17574 . .3032 . . 17 25 1881) . . . . 237 . . 17919 . . 3132 . . 17.47 1881 .. .. 249 17868 .. 2960 .. 16.56 1882 . . . , 196 . . 14900 . . 2458 . . 16-50 The diminution in our number of returns is most marked in the Irish ones, but the number of samples reported-nearly 15,000, is quite enough to deduce an average from and show that adulteration is not yet looked upon by all tradesmen in the light of the robbery which it really is. The percentages of Milk and Groceries purchased are shown in the follomiing table. It is not considered necessary to give the figures for the other varieties of samples. SABIPLES PUROHASED-PERCENTAGE ON TOTAL. 1879. 1880. 1881. 1882. Milk .. .. 36.1 .. 40.4 .. 387 .. 37.0 Grooeries .. 25.0 .. 21.5 .. 24.2 .. 24.3168 THE ANALYST. The most important calculation is that which shows the percentage of adulteration actually found on each olass of article.To make this clear I reproduce the figures for the five preceding years. PERUENTAGFEB OF ADULTERATION FOUND FROM 1877 TO 1882, CALCULATED ON THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES OF EACH ULASS ANALYBED. 1877. 1878. 1879. 1880. 1881. Milk.. . . . . . . 26.07 . . 18 38 . . 22.06 . . 22.00 . . 19 95 Butter .. .. .. 12.48 .. 13-23 .. 13.93 .. 20.08 .. 12.67 Groceries .. .. .. 13 03 .. 12-89 .. 11-73 .. 10.43 .. 9.70 Drugs .. .. .. 23.82 .. 35.77 .. 2666 .. 20.26 .. 19.09 Wine, Spirits, and Beer . . 47.00 . . 29*31 . . 28.30 , . 21.31 . . 23.94 BreadandFlour .. .. 6.84 .. 2.97 .. 462 .. 6-39 .. 4-23 Water .. .. 21-45 . . 17-73 .. 26.17 Sundries .. .. } 21‘63 * * 14*98 { 10.17 ..6.66 . . 5.00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1882. 20.35 16-24 10-00 16.74 21.11 4.32 28.30 7-03 - - - - --- - Average .. .. 17.70 1658 17-25 IT47 16855 16-50 The percentage of adulterated Milk is somewhat worse than last gear, but the differ- enoe is fractional only. The treatment of Milk is exceptionally lenient towards the ‘‘ trade,” since prosecutions are rare for less than ten per cent. of water, and since the Society’s limit is a low one, 80 that probably it is near the truth to say that about 20 per cent. of water is, on the average, added to all the Milk sold. Butter shows a higher figure, but in nearly every case the report appears t o be for the sde of Batterine under the name of Butter instead of admixture. Groceries are fractionally worse, but the difference is trifling. Drugs show an improvement of more than 2 per cent., and have fallen to less than half the maximum found in 1878.Still there is room for further care, and it would be well if those pharmaceutical chemists who can test their own drugs satisfactorily did so in a more systematic manner. Wines, Spirits, and Beer show a fractional improvement which brings them almost to the level of 1880. The other items of the table hardly call for remark until we COMB to the last line, and then it is a wretched conclusion to come to. Five years work from 1877 to 1882 has only reduced the average percentage of adulteration by 1.2 per cent., and the last year has only reduced it by 005 per cent. ; these results being all obtained on samples purchased by others known, and in many cases recognised as officials. In the Hetropolis itself we have reports of the results of 2,364 samples, and the number adulterated is 382 or 16.15 per cent., very nearly 2 per cent. worse than last year. I have always in these reports made a summary of -the (‘ black list,” i.e., of Districts which after appointing an analyst ignore the fact and procure no samples, leaving purchasers in the same condition as before. This year the list, as far as we have it, includes three counties and 42 towns all deprived in this way of the benefit of the Act. They do not manage things this way in France or the States, but Public Analysts are powerless in the matter. If the Inspectors will not purchase, nothing can be done but to wait patiently for the needed amendment of the law. When is this to come? I am indebted to the Secretaries of the Society, Messrs. Dyer and Hehner, for pro- curing these returns for the purpose of this summary, and still further to the Analysta who have prepared them.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8830800167

出版商:RSC    

年代:1883

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALY8T. REFERENCES TO SOMERSET HOUSE UNDER THE (‘ SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS” ACT. Thirty samples have been referred to us nnder the above Aet. They comprised milk, butter, whisky, gin, rum, beer, bread, coffee, sweat nitre, ketchup, arrowroot, and ground ginger. Of 17 samples of milk sent, 12 were alleged to have been watered, and five were pronounced to have been deprived of a portion of their cream. In eight of the cases stated to have been watered, we agreed with the conclusions of the analysts, but in four instances we were unable to confirm their certificates, In four of the five cases in which cream was alleged to have been abstracted we found the percentage of fat to range from 2.49 to 2.79. As the lowest of these is practically equal to the minimum limit recommended by the Society of Public Analysts, it would appear that the respective local analysts had failed to extract the whole of the fat.170 TIKEG ANALYST. In neither of two samples of butter could we confirm the allegation of the presence of foreign fat.One of these cases obtained considerable notoriety from the action of the local analyst, who wrote to the press complaining about our report, but he omitted to mention that the sample had also been anslysed for the defence by a Public Analyst of considerable standing, whom conclusions agreed with ours. The matter was taken up by the local authmities, and a correspondence with the Local Government Board ensued. Four samples of spirits were examined, in three of which we agreed with the analyst, In the fourth case it would appear as if the obscuration of strength caused by the presence of sweetening and colouring matter had not been taken into account.The beer was alleged to have been adulterated with common salt, but the analyst had evidently followed the practice, commented upon in my last Report, of calculating the amount of salt from the chlorine present, without ascertaining whether or not there wafl sufficient sodium in the beer to form, with the chloride, the quantity of common salt reported . The sample of bread contained the unusually large proportion of 39 grains of alum per 4 lb. loaf. The sample of coffee contained nearly half its weight of chicory. The sample of ‘‘ sweet nitre ’’ affords an illustration of a difficuIty we sometimes find in giving a certificate which is equally just to the proeecutor and to the defendant.Aocording to the London Pharmacopczia of 1851, sweet nitre or sweet spirits of nitre was prepared by distilling together alcohol and nitric acid in certain proportions. Under these circumstances, the action of the acid on the alcohol is not always alike, and the didillate consists of allcohol holding in solution more or less nitrous ether and aldehyde, according as the action of the acid on the alcohol has been greater or less. This process was modified in subsequent Pharmacopoeias, and the British Pbarmacopa4a of 186’7 directs certain quantities of uitrio acid, sulphuric acid, copper, and alcohol to be distilled together, and the product, when mixed with a certain quantity of dcohol, is called spirit of nitrous ether. This contains a larger and less variable proportion of nitrous ether than sweet nitre,” prepared by the process laid down in 1851. The first named process, however, is still extensively followed, and we therefore reportsd that tihe results of the analysis agreed with those of ‘‘ sweet nitre,” prepared according to a formula given in the London Pharma- eopoeia of 185 1. The ketohup was not only much below the strength of several commercial samples purchased for comparison, but was also in a state of decomposition. The arrowroot had been much reduced in commercial value by the addition of 40 per oent. of sago flour, and the ground ginger by 20 per cent. of ground rice.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN883080169b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1883

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

170 TIKEG ANALYST. ADULTERATED DRUGS. WE print a full report of some prosecutions of chemists in the Hampstead district of London under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. Spirits of nitre and tincture of quinine were the articles alleged to be of deficient quality. The preparations of the British Pharmacopceia, were expressly asked for, and chemists must be careful in such cases to supply such. In respect to the tincture of quinine, Mr. Heisch, the PublioTHE ANALYST. 171 Analyst for the district, found only a little over 6 grains of quinine in the ounce, while Professor Attfield, by another process, found 73 grains to the ounce, and considers that about another 4 grain is lost in the analysis. In consequence of this contradictory evidence, the sample is referred to Somerset Home.Two of the defendants declined to receive from the inspector portions of lohe substances purchased. It is quite incomprehensible why it is that so many tradesmen refuge to avail themselves of the protection which the Act thus provides for them. If they me guilty they are no worse off by having the sample, while, if they are innocent, it is often the only chance they have of justifying themselves. We reprint the report from the Chemist and Druggist. Mr. Alfred Bostock Hill, M.D., L.R.C.P. Edin., L.S.A. Lond., B.Sc. Cert. Cantab., has been appointed Public Analyst for the City of Coventry, at 21s. per analysis, and $3 3s. per day and travelling expenses when required to give evidence, vice Swete, resigned. ANALYST’S REPORT. Mr. Thomas Fairley, analyst for the borough of Leeds, has furnished the following report for the past qusrtrr :-“ The following samples have been recelved :-Milk 20, butter 12, coffee 3, spirits 3, flour 1 ; total, 39. Pourteen samples of the milk were genuine, three of poor quality, and three were adulterated, containing 12, 14, and 32 per cent. of water respectively. Three samples of butter were genuine; the other nine consisted chiefly of bntterine. Two of the samples of coffee were genuine; the other contained 47 pcr ccnt. of chicory. The three samples of spirits ware one esch of whisky, brandy, and gin, and were all reported genuine. The flour was reported genuine, but of poor quality.”

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8830800170

出版商:RSC    

年代:1883

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 171 ON UNSWEETENED CONDENSED MILK. From a report received from N. Vignal, of the College de France, Paris, on the Factory of the First Swiss Alpine Milk Company, and printed in the Sanitary Record, it would appear that the keeping properties of unsweetened milk depend to ti very great extent upon the degree of care and cleaiiliness with which the various operations connected with the concentration of the milk are oonducted. A first essential to success is the restrictions which are placed on the farmers that the milk is to be of more than fair average quality. This decision being based upon ti gpecific gravity of 1032, all milks below that axe rejected; not, perhaps, because they are not genuine, or that any suspicion of their quality is enter- tained, but simply that the proprietore of the establishment are determined to adopt every possible precaution against the employment of poor or watered milk, which they possibly think would be likely to introduce germs and bacteria-either more difficult to destroy, from their being in an advanced stage of development; or that this class of milk isliableand subject to receiving various contaminations from the atmosphere and eurroundings, whichmust of necessity aii’ect to a greater or less extent, especially when in a condensed form.We know that one or more of our large milk companies are adopting the same course, and refusing to accept farmers’ milk below a gravity of 10.20. Tn fact, thanks mainly to the exertions of the Society of Public Analysts, it is becoming quite customary for large milk con- sumers to insert a clause in their contracts that dl milk delivered shall come up to a certain standard.This is certainly as it should be, and only fair to producer and consumer. I t is a pity that some of our magistrates do not take a similar view of the case, and impose heavy fines for adulteration of 10 per cent. of water, instead of tha customary few shillings and costs. Poor milk is certainly quite ag objectionable as other inferior forms of food, and when172 THE ANALYST. retailed as a perfectly sound article at a similar price to the genuine one, it is high time that something was done to prevent such a flagrant form of robbery as is being continually committed barefaced before our eyes. Of course the oft and now somewhat worn-out plea that cows have been known to yield milk of an abnormally low quality, has been and will be urged in mitigation of the offence of adulterating milk with small quantities of water, and of course the country has been scoured all round to find such an animal and when found she has proved of more value and service to the purveyors of milk than a whole herd of best milch cows.To return to the report of 51. Vignal, it would appear that after the milk has been received it is never handled or touched, and the whole of the operations are conducted in pans thoroughly scoured with sand and hot water, and afterwards submitted to the action of high pressure steam. There is no addition of any preservative with the exception of an extremely small proportion of borax, amounting to perhaps -2 of a grain per gallon, in the nnconcentrated miIk, the keeping properties of the condensed milk being mainly dependent upon three things- 1.The extreme cleanliness observed in its manufacture. 2. The heating of the milk to a very considerable temperature after condensation. 8. The careful packing and soldering in air tight tins. The degree of concentration to which the milk is subjected at the First Swiss Alpine Milk Company’s works is in tho proportion of 3 gallons to 1 of condensed milk; its rJpecific gravity being 1106 at 2 6 O C., at which temperature it is enclosed in bottles or tins. The fact that the color is much darker than ordinary milk is due, so say the directors of the establishment, to the smaller or larger quantity of green food given to the cows, which, says M.Vignal 4 L is a rational explanation, 8s it is well known that in spring and autumn the butter is yellower than at other seasons of the year, owing to the presence of a certain proportion of chlorophyll in the milk.” That this is the case no chemist would dispute, but the dark chocolate color of most of the unsweetened condensed milks is much more likely to be due to slight decomposition of either milk sugar or casein caused by the high temperature employed in presumably destroying germs, and which, perhaps, also acconnts for the peculiar flavor of most of these milks, described by some as a ‘ boiled taste.’ On the whole the report is very favorable, and clearly shows that important progresrr has been made in the daily increasing industry of (‘ milk concentration.” We trust before long to hear that an unsweetened condensed milk has been produced equal in flavor and quality to that milked direct from the cow, The following is an analysis of the milk by Professor Fresenius, together with a aomparison of a diluted sample with fair average milk :- Per cent.Casein ...................................................... 10.65 Albumen .................................................... 1-27 Butter ...................................................... 10-67 Milk sugar., .................................................. 14.26 Inorganic substances .......................................... 2.36 Total of solid substances.. ................ 39*41 Water.. ......................................................60.59 100*00THE: ANALYST . 178 The inorganic substances are as follows- In 236 parts . 100 parts . Borax .............................. 0 630 ................ 2669 Natron .............................. 0.256 ................ 10.85 Lime ................................ 0-543 ................ 23.01 Magnesia, ............................ 0.057 ................ 241 Oxide of iron ........................ Traces ................ Traces Phosphoric acid ...................... 0 669 ................ 2835 Sulphurio acid ........................ 0 049 ................ 208 Chlorine ............................ 0202 ................ 8.56 2.406 ................ 101.95 - - Less oxygen .......................... 0 046 ................ 1.95 - - 2.360 ................ 100*00 A mixture of one part aondensed milk ma two parts water . Pure milk oontrtins on average . accorhg t o Vieth . Water . , ............................ 86.87 ................ 87.25 Butter .............................. 3.62 ................ 3.50 Caseine .............................. 3-55 ................ 3.50 Albumen ................. , ....... ._. . @42 ................ 0.40 Milk sugar .......................... 4.75 ................ 460 Inorganio aubstance .................. 0.79 ................ 0.75 __1 - 10000 ................ 100.00

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8830800171

出版商:RSC    

年代:1883

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE: ANALYST. 178 LAW REPORTS. PROSECUTION OF CHEMISTS UNDER THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS A ~ T . At the Marylebone Police Court on August l5th, before Mr. A de Rutzen, stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Joseph John William Allen, chemist and druggist, of 19, Elizabeth Terrace, St. John’s, Hampstead, and Mrs. Jane Allchin, of IA, Elizabeth Terrace, St. John’s, Hampstead, were charged on two summonses under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act-that they did unlawfully sell to the prejudice of George Allen Smith, inspector for the parish of St. John, Hampstead, certain drugs, to wit :- L1: 1. Three oz. of tincture of quinine, B.P., which did not contain tho proper quantity of sulphate of quinine, via., 8 grains to the oz. 2. Six oz. of spirits of nitrous ether, B.P., which did not contain 2 per cent.of nitrous ether.” Nr. S. J. Porter, of the firm of Messrs. Glaisyer & Porter, solicitors, Birmingham, acting under the instructions of the secretary of the Chemists’ and Druggists’ Trade Asso- ciation of Great Britain, appeared for the defendants, and Mr. Ricketts represented the parish authorities. Mr. Porter said that in the cases of Allen and Allchin he wished to apply for an adjournment. As the summonses were served only five days previously, siifficient time had not elapsed to allow of an independent analjsis being made of the samples of drugs left with one of the defendants by the inspector. Mr. Rioketts said that a fifth summons had been issued under the same Act against Mr. Pipe, chemist and druggist, King’s clollege Road. He paw some difficulty in allowing174 TEE ANALYST.one case to praceed and the others to stand over, more particularly as Mr. Pipe was charged like the abhers, with selling indifferent spirits of nitre. Mr. Pipe expressed a wish that his case might be taken at once, but subsequently decided to have it adjourned, with the others, till September 12. IUr. Porter then said in the case of Allen he ]had to ask that the SLiyeidiary would be good enough to make an order that sealed samples of the drugs purchased from the defendant be handed to him for independent analysis. The Stipendiary inquired how it was that the inspector did not leave sealed samples with Mr. Allen at the time the purchase was made. Mr. Porter said that the inspector had cmried out the requirements of the Act by asking Mr.Allen at the time the purchase was effected if he would have sealed samples, but Allen unfortunately said that he did not care about them. Under the circumstances he should feel obliged if the magistrate would make the order. It was important that an independent analysis should be made. It was admitted by his friend that the inspector had done Lis duty in offering samples to Mr. Allen, and ~ h ~ u the case mas heard tho defence would have an opportunity of cross-examining the Public Analyst, and if after that they were not eatisfied d t h biR analpis there was a provision in the Act by which the sealed,samples could be analjsed by the Somerset House authorities. He certainly could not agree to the samples leaving the inspector’s hands at that stage.Mr. Porter said he did not wish that the v~hole of the samples left by the impector should be given up, but that they should be furl her divided, still leaving a portion with the inspector, which might subsequently go to Somerset Rouse if necessary. The Stipendiary eaid that he really did not feel disposed to make an order at that stage of the proceedings. Mr. Porter then asked that the sample in the inspector’s hands might be at once trans- mitted to Somerset House. Mr. Rioketts said he thought his friend vas somewhat premature in making that application. Mr. Porter eaid his object in doing so was to saw B probable further adjournment at the hearing. Nr. Ricketts said if the other side made an application for a further adjournment at the hearing, and his worship thought it was a reasonable application, he, on the part of Ihe authorities, would raise no objection. Mr.Porter said that after what Mr. Ricketts had just said he would withdraw his application for the order. Mr. Ricketts said that he opposed the application entirely. The adjourned hearing of these cases took place at the Marylebone Police Court, on Wednesday, 8eptember 12, before Mr. Mansfield, Stipendiary, when Mr. Glaisyer, so!icitor to the Chemists’ and Druggists’ Trade Association of Great Britain, appeared for two of the defendants. Mr. Ricketts, in opening the case fcr tho authorities, said he was instructed to commence proceedings against certain chemists aud druggists residing in the district of St, John, Hampstead, they having sold, in contravention of the provisionrr of the Sale of FoodTHE ANALYST.175 and Drugs Act, spirit of nitrous ether and tincture of quinine, the same being below the recognised official atrength, and therefore to the prejudice of Mr. Smith, the inspector under the Act who purchased the eame, As prosecutions under that brauch of the Act were somewhat novel in tbat court, he proposed to read from the preface to the Rritibh Phar- maeopsia certain clauses, showing that that book was to be taken as tl standard for the preparation of drugs. Having done so, he continued to say that his Worship would see that of all the articles that came within the scope of the Act none were of more importance than drugs, as, if supplied by the chemist above the official strength, the prescriber might thereby cause the death of his patient, and, if below the recognised strength, he would probably fail to give relief to the people.‘She Vestry of Hampstead therefore, believing this to be a very important matter had ventured to bring five cases into court. Although the certificates of the Public Analyst were prima facie evidence, j e t these being the first cases of the kind which have been tried in that Court, the prosecution deemed it advisabIg that the analyst should he present to give evidence if necessary. He proposed to take the case of Walter Pipe first. I n that case the analyst found the specific gravity of spirits of nitrous ether sold to be 847.7, instead of 845, and that it contained 069 per cent. of nitrous ether instead of 2 per cent. as ordered in the British Pharrnacopmia ; therefore the article was very much weaker than it should have been.He purposed putting the analjst into the witness-box to corroborate that statement, and ho thought after hearing his evidence his Vorship would be of opinion that it was a very proper case for the authorities to bring forward, and that it was clearly a case coming within the scope of the Act, as there could, he thought, be no question as to the preparation sold being a drug within the meaning of the Ad. He said he was inspector of nuisances for the parish of St. John, Xampstead. On June 14 last he visited the shop of tho defendant, No. 1, King’s College Road, Ellad asked for 6 ozs. of‘ spirits of nitrous ether, B.P., with which he was supplied, and for which he paid 2s.The defen- dant was a chemist and druggist, and he, the inspector, was served by the defendant’s assistant. After pajing for the article, he said he was an inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and that he intended to have the spirit analysed by the Public Analyst, and offered to divide the sample into three parts, when the defendant said he did not require a portion of it, and added he was not sure the article was B.P., but that he had no intention to defrauding the public. He took the bottle to the Public Analyst for the district, having previously marked the sample 50 B.P. ; and in due course he received the Public Analyet’s certificate, which was put in and read. It stated that the spirit in question was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser, inaamach as it did not contain the proper quantity, viz.2 per cent. of nitrous ether, contrary to the statue in that case made and provided. When he took the bottle to the Public Analjst, Mr. Neisch divided the fluid into two parts one of which he returned to him after soaling it with his seal. That bottle he now produced in the same condition as he received it from the analyst. Cross-examined by Mr. Glaisyer, be said he left the bottle in which he received the nitre from the defendant with the Public Analyst. He had not seen it since then. He did not know whether it was in Court. He did not know what was on the label when the bottle was handed to him bydthe defendant. He believed there was label on the bottle. Mr.George Allen Smith was called, sworn, and examined by Mr. Rioketts.176 THE ANALYST, ~ As far as he remembered, it was simply a label giving the defendant’s name and address. He was not sure it did not bear the name of the article sold, but he thought not. He removed the label, because under the Act the Analyst is not allowed to know the name or address of the person from whom the preparation he is to analpe was obtained. He did not keep the label. He would not swear that the words ‘‘ Sweet Spirits of Nitre ” were not on the label-they might have been, but he did not recollect them. He did not ask for the nitre by word of mouth, but banded over the counter a wiitten order, which he left with the defendant. In addition to the spirit of nitre the order contained the following articles: 2 ozs.of citrate of iron and quinine, and 3 ozs. of tincture of quinine, B.P. Nothing else ; no morphia. E e submitted all three articles that were supplied to him to the Public Analyst. No summons had been issued on the oitrate or tincture. When in the defendant’s shop he heard a conversation that took place between the defendant and his assistant, the sub- stance of which, as far as he could gather, relating to the emptying or filling of a shop bottle with nitre by the assistant. The assistant said he had recently filled the bottle ; he also gathered from the conversation that there were two articles in use of trade sold as spirit of nitre, one the British Pharmacopeia preparation, and the other made according to the direction of the old, or London, Pharmacopceia.He did not hear whether the assistant had been with tahe defendant very long, The question was raised as to whether the assistant, when filling the shop bottle, had used the London or British Pharmacopceia nitre ; but that was after the purcbase had been completed. He had actually paid for the nitre before that part of the conversatim had occurred. He had told the defendant he wanted the article for analysis before anything was said about filling the shop bottle. He would swear to that. The defendant told him that the bottle from which he had supplied him was usually filled with the British Pharmacopoeia preparation. After the purchase was completed, the defen- dant told him he did not guarantee the article was British Pharmacopceia nitre.He would not swear that it was not labelled (‘Sweet Spirits of Nitre.” The defendant. told him he kept two preparations of nitre in stock. When the defendant said he would not guarantee the article, he replied that he had no alternative but to fake it to the Public Analyst. Mr. Charles Heisch was called, sworn, and examined by Mr. Ricketts. He said he was Consulting Chemist, Fellow of the Chemical Society and Institute of Chemistry, and Public Analyst for the district of St. John, Hampstead. His laboratory was situated at 79, Mark Lane. On June 15 last he received from Inspector Smith a bottle sealed with his seal containing spirits of nitre. He divided the same into two part#, one of which he re- turned to the Inspector, the other portion he analysed with the result stated by the last witness.The specific gravity he found to be 847.7 instead of‘ 845, and using the tests ordered in the BritiEh Pharmacopeia, it gave no appreciable nitrous ether ; but by Dr. Dupre’s method, which he oonsidered a better method, it contained -69 per cent, instead of 2 per cent. as ordered in the British Pharmacopceia. He gave the defendant the benefit of that last test. He produced the British Pharmacopoeia. Mr. Glaisyer asked for {he date of Pharmacopaia in the hands of the witness. The witness said it was 1864, when Mr. Glaisyer remarked that there was a more recent edition of the Pharmaoopeia which differed from the book in the hands of the witness in the tests there mentioned in the article before his Worship. He then produced the 1867 edition, handed same to witness, asking him to read the teats fromboth editions.Mr. HeischTHE ANALYST. 177 having done so, continued to sag the specific gravity was the same in both editions, and both editions gave a test with chloride of calcium, with this difference in the result :-The 1874 edition stated that, if the spirit be agitated with twice its volume of saturated solution of chloride of calcium in a closed tube, 2 per cent. of its original volume will separate in the form of ‘‘ nitrous ether,” and also to the surface of the mixture ; the 1877 edition used the words (( etherial liquid ’’ in the place of (( nitrous ether.” On analysing the sample of spirits before his Worship by the Pharmacopceia test no fluid, either etber or stherial, rose to the surface.Cross-examined by Mr. Glaisyer, he said he had given considerable attention to the analysis of drugs, having been for twenty-six years connected with the Middlesex Hospital. He was well acquainted with the London Pharmacopeia. Sweet spirits of nitre was mentioned in that Pharmacopceia. He should not say that the drng mentioned in the London Pharmacopoeia was made by a totally different method to that ordered in the British Pharmacopoeia. He could not reoollect what the London form was. The London preparation was in general use, and would probably be supplied by chemists if the British Pharmacopceia was not especially asked for. He believed there was no difference in price between the two preparations in purchasing them in wholesale quantities from the manufac- turers.There would be no pecuniary advantage whatever to fi chemist in substituting the one for the other. He did not know what was the specific gravity of the London Pharma- aopmia preparation. The specific gravity of the article sold by the defendant was too high, which would indicate the absence of so much ether. It was true that the new edition of the British Pharmacopoeia stated, in reference to the chloride of calcium test, that 2 per cent. of etherial fluid should rise to the surface, whereas the 1874 edition stated that the proper quantity was 2 per cent. of nitrous ether, but as no fluid of any kind rose to the surface in testing the sample by that process, he considered the discrepancy immaterial. Mr. Glaisyer said that on the part of his client he admitted that the spirit of mitre supplied to the inspector was made according to the London Pharrnacopceia formula, and not according to the Britisb, His Worship would probably have gathered from the crow- examination of I!&.Heisch that there were two preparations known in the trade as sweet; spirits of nitre, Both of these were kept in stock by the defendant. Just before the inspector visited the defendant’s shop a new assistant had come to him, and it appeared that this assistant had inadvertently filled the shop bottle which usually contained the B.P. preparation with the P.L. article, and that therefore the defendant had supplied the inspector with the old P.L. drug instead of with the P.B. He should put the defendant into the box, and he would tell his Worship that he explained to the iilspector before the purchase was completed, that he did not guarantee the article sold to be British Pharmacopeia nitre ; furthermore, the defendant labelled the bottle sweet spirits of nitre, by which title the old preparation was best known, and not spirits of nitrous ether, which is the name mentioned in the British Pharmacopceie, so that his Worship would see that he really did all he could, under the circumstances, to put the purchaser on his guard, and where the prejudice to the purchaser came in he could not see.The inspector was supplied with a good sample of the London Pharmacopceia preparation. He would put the defendant into the box to corroborate the statement he had julst made, and that would be the only witness he deemed178 THE ANALYST.it necessary to call. It should be borne in mind that the other drugs which had been pur- chased flam the defendant had not been found deficient in strength or quality, and that the price of the two preparations of nitre he had referred to were the same, 80 that the defendant could have had no object whatever in substituting the one for the other, as be had both preparations in stock. Mr. Walter Pipe was called, sworn, and examined by Mr. Glaisyer: He said he was a registered chemist and druggist, carrying on business at No. 1, King's College Road, where he had conducted the business on his own aocount for more than twelve gears. He had never before been charged wiln selling adulterated drugs. When he was wrapping up the spirit of nitre for the inspector he turned to his new assistant and asked him if, when he filled the ehop bottle a few days previously, he had used the P.B.nitro. His assistant, replying, said he was not sure, as he did not know any distinction was made. He (the de- fendant, told fhe inspector that he would not guarantee the article he was selling to be the P.B. nitre, GEI he kept both preparations in etock, adding that one was quite as good as the other. At the time this conversation took place the inspector had not paid for the nitre, the purohase was not completed. The inspector had however, prior to the conver- sation, told me that he wanted it for the purpose of analysis. Cross-examined by Mr. Ricketts : Witness said the inspector brought to him a written order containing, among other art'icles, spirits of nitrous ether, B.P. The older distinctly stated B.P.; but, by an accideat, the inspector was supplied with the P.L,, but at the same time cautioned that il might not have been P.B. Mr. Mansfield Faid be did not think it wag a case which would fairly come within the scope of the Act. The proceedings, however, would certainly be a caution to the defendant, to be more careful for the future. I t was an accident, no doubt, that the one preparation had been substituted for the other, and taking into consideration the conversation that had occurred at the time of purchase, he felt justified in dismissing the summons. Mrs. Jane Allchin, l ~ , Elizabeth Terrace, N.W., was then charged with having Hold, to the prejudice of the purchaser, 3 oz.of tincture of quinine which did not contain the proper quantity of sulphate of quinine. Police-constable D 38, having proved the service of the aummons, Mr. Ricketts said that in this case tincture of quinine had been sold which wa8 very much below the regulation strength. Inspector Smith called, sworn, and examined by Mr. Ricketts, said : that on June 14 last he visited the shop of the defendant and handed over the counter 8 written order, which contained among other things, 3 ozs. of tincture of quinine, E.P., which was supplied to him at a charge of 39. He divided the eamplo in the usual manner, handing a portion to the assistant who served him, and taking another portion to the Public Analyst. MP. Charles Heisch called, sworn, and examined by Mr.Ricketts, said : he aualysed the sample of tincture of quinine purchased by the inspector in this case; it was marked 44 P.B. Tincture of quinine, made according to the British Pharmacopceia formula, should contain eight grains of sulphate of quinine per ounce ; the sample in question contained only 6.2 grains per ounce ; that would make a material difference in prescribing the preparation, Cross-examined by Mr. Glaisyer, he claid the British Pharmacopaeia ordered the pre-THE ANALYST. 179 paration to be made by adding 160 grains of quinine to one pint of tincture of orange-peel, but it does not state what quantity of quinine should be found in the tincture on analjsis. He had made tincture of quinine himself and analysed it subsequently, and found it to con- tain eight grains to theounoe.There might be a slight loss in the analysis, perhaps a hundredth of a grain. He did not keep any of the samples he made for any length of time before he prooeeded to analyse them ; but some of the preparations he had analysed had been made twelve months. Tho samples he made himself he had analysed withinafew weeks. Even if the tincture was made in cold weather he did not think any of the quinine would crystalise out. He would not swear to that, but as he had kept samples for several months in all sorts of weather he did not think the quinine would crystalise out. He had analysed dozens of samples of tincture of quinine. He employed the following process :- evaporate the tincture to dryness, treat the residue with dilute sulphuric acid, add the smallest possible excess of ammonia, collect the precipitate of quinia, wash it with water, dry and then weigh.That was the only test he employed in the present case to estimate the quantity of quinine. He analysed six aamples at the same time, three of which were good samples, and the remainder deficient in quinine. Mr. Glaisyer said that in this case a sealed sample of the tincture of quinine sold had been left with the defendant, and had been subsequently analysed by Professor Attfield, than whom he supposed uo person in the United Kingdom was better acquainted with drugs, including their prepai*ations and analysis. In proof of that assertion he might mention that the Professor had been selected as one of the three appointed editors of the new British Pharmacopceia in course of preparation.The sample of quinine in question the Professor found on analysis to contain 7+ grains of sulphste of quinine. This he would give in evidence, and would also state that the half-grain per ounce remaining to make up the 8 grains ordered in the Pharmacopoeia is lost in the process of analysis. He (the Professor) would explain the tests he employed, and that in his opinion the tincture in question was made according to the British Pharmacopoeia, and was properly sold as tincture of quinine. With regard to tho preparation of the tincture, he should call Mrs. Allchin’s assistant who would state that he manufactured the preparation gold, and that he employed the full quantity of quinine ordered in the British Pharmacopceia in his preparation, and that it was sold to the inspector in the same condition.He thought if he could clearly establish these facts, his Worship would see his way to dismiss the summons, Mr. Edward Charles James Davies was called, sworn, and examined by Mr. Gltlisyer : He said that he was an assistant to Mrs. Allchin, and had been in her employ, and that of her late husband, for more than five years. Ho was a registered chemist and druggist. During Mr. Allchin’s lifetime he manufaotured pharmaceutical preparations under his direction, and since his death he had done the like work. He made the tincture of quinine, sold to the inspector, by adding 320 grains of sulphate of quinine to 2 pints of tincture of orange peel, that was at the rate of 8 grains per ounce, as ordered in the BritiBh Pharmaoopaeia.He served the inspeotor personally with the tincture, he did not not remember exactly when he manufactured the tincture, but it would be about a month prior to the visit of the inspector. Gross-examined by Mr. Ricketfs : He did not make a record in any book at the time he made the tinoture with whioh the inspector was supplied, but he was quite sure he did The quinine emplcyed was manuhctured by Howard.180 THE ANALYST. ~~ ~ not make a mistake in weighing the quinine, as he had on so many occasions weighed out the 320 grains for the quart of tincture. He could not account for the Public Analyst find- ing only about 6 grains of quinine in each ounce of tincture, as he was quite sure the full quantity, namely 8 grains, was put into it.Professor Attfield was called-sworn, and examined by Mr. Glaisyer-said that he was Professor of Practical Chemistry to the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britian, and the author of a Manual on Chemistry,” which had run through a great many editions, a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the Institute of Chemistry. He received a sample of quinine from Mr. Allchin’s assistant ; the bottle was marked 44 P.B., and the cork bore the official seal. He analysed its contents and found practically 73 grains of sulphate of quinine in the fluid ounce. He extracted quinia equivalent to 7-44 grains of sulphate of quinine to the ounce. From experiments he had made he had come to the conclusion that if 8 grains of Etulphate of quinine were used in the preparation of 1 oz.of tincture of quinine, that i$ grain per ounce would be lost in the analysis of the samo. He based that conclusion on the analysis of samples made by himself. He heard the Public Analyst give his evidence. The process Mr. Heisch used was a process which he himself had employed several years ago, and he was sorry to say he could place no trust in it ; the figures obtained by it might be right or they might be wrong, it was quite possible to get either. It was not the process he adopted in testing the samples sent to him. The process he adopted he con- sidered better than Mr. Heisch’s process; he had come to that conclusion after carefully testing both personally. The process he used on this occasion did give fairly correct results. It was perfectly well known that tincture of quinine made according to the British Pharmacopeia was liable to lose some of its sulphate of quinine by deposition-it did so quite commonly in cold weather.The sample in this case, he concluded, had not lost any of its quinine by deposition; he was strengthened in this opinion having analysed a portion of the tincture from the bulk from which the inspector was supplied. That contained a deposit, but the deposit was sulphate of lime, and not quinine. He was prepared to say that the article sold was a good sample of tincture of quinine, made according to the British Pharmacopceia. Cross-examined by M i . Ricketts : He said the bottle he produced was that from which he took the tincture he had arialysed. The bottle, when it came into his possession, was sealed with the official seal of St. John, Hampstead.The cork had not been drawn since it was sealed. The process he employed to andyse the sample was as follows :-Evaporate the tincture to dryness ; digest the residue in dilute sulphuric acid ; add ammonia, and shake the mixture with chloroform ; separate the chloroform ; mash the fluid very effectually two or three times with additional chloroform-chloroform had the effect of dissolving the quinia from the watery liquid. Evaporate the chloroform solutions to dryness, treat the residue again with dilute sulphuric acid, and add ammonia and ether-the ether had the effect of disolving out the quinia from the aqueous fluid ; wash the fluid very effectually two or three times with ether ; finally, evaporate the ethereal solutions to dryness, and weigh the residue. He though that wa8 not only a more elaborate but a more accurate process than that employed by Mr.Heisch. He considered Mr. Heisch’s process inaccurate and untrustworthy. Mr. Ricketts said that as there appeared to be considerable difference between the Mr. Heisch’s process did not give truetworthy results. He did not know what process was made use of at Somerset House.T m ANALYST. 181 results of the analyses of the two gentlemen who had examined the samples,, he should ask that the third sample be sent to Somerset House, and that the case be adjourned for that purpose. Mr. Mansfield said he really could not undertake to decide between the two tmalysts whose evidence he had heard, and that the third sample had better be sent to Somerset House and the case adjourned for fourteen days.Mrs. Jane Allchin was then chttrged with having sold spirits of nitre, P.B., which did not oontain the proper quantity of nitrous ether, viz., 2 per cent. Mr. Glaisyer said that he had conducted the defence in the previous cases on thg instructions of the Chemitlts’ and Druggistd Trade Association of Great Britain, He was not, however, instructed to take any part in the present case. In Mrs. Allchin’s absence he would state that in this case also ths London Pharmacopceia preparation had been sold instead of the British Pharmscopoeitt article. It was purchased from a most respectable wholesale house, and Bold in the same condition in which it was purchased, and that the wholesale house referred to charged the same price for the one as for the other.Mi. Mansfield said : I shall impose a merely nominal penalty of 6s. and 2s. costs. Mr. Rittketts applied for extra costs, which was refused. Mr. J. J. W, Allen, of 19, Elizabeth Terrace, N.W., was then charged with having sold to Inspector Smith tincture of quinine and spirit of nitrous ether not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser. Mr. Glaisyer said the defendant was foolish enough to refuse sealed samples from the inspector at the time tho purehase was made. He was instructed by the society he represented, and with the sanction of the defendant, to renew the application made at the last hearing, that sealed samples should be handed to the inspector. Mr.Ricketts opposed the application. Mr. Mansfield said that as the inspector had offered to divide the samples at the time of purchase, and this offer had not been accepted by the defendant, he did not feeldisposed to make an order. Mr. Glaisyer said that under tho80 circumstances he was instructed to retire from the case. Evidence having been given as to the purchase of the article and the analysis of the samples, the defendant said that the spirit of nitre sold was P.L. nitre, and not P.B. nitre, which he purchased from a most respectable wholesale house, and that the tincture of quinine he manufactured himself stric tly according to the British Pharrnacopceia. A fine of 59. and 209. oost8 mas inflioted on the tincture of quinine snmmons, and 5s.and 2s. costs on the other. Mr. Mansfield said it appeared that the British Pharmacopceia preparation of sweet spirits of nitre had not come into very general use. Mr, Glaisyer said that when chemists supplied the British Pharmacopah preparation summonses were not iwued, and, therefore, such cases did not come before his Worship. Milk Adulteration :- At Woolwich Police Court, Mr. Ephraim Butters, of Jackson Street, Woolwich Common, was charged with adulteratug his milk to the extent of 18 per cent. of added water.-James Pitman, called for the prosecution, said he knew that there was water in the milk, for his master put a churn with water in it into the cart when he sent witnesrr to milk the COWS. The milk was then passed into the182 THE ANALYST.~~ churn with the water.-Mr. Hughes : How much water ?-About eight quarts to sixty quarts of milk.- Was this the usual system ?-Yes ; every afternoon about six quarts of water mas put to a churn, which would hold sixty-four quarts, but mas seldom full.-Did you ever mix it yourself ?-Yes, by defendant’s orders.-Mr. Lewis : You knew that you were robbing the public ?-Yes, under orders.-Defendant was then called by Mr. Lewis, and said : I dismissed the last witness because I suspected him, for I never put water into the milk to the extent mentioned. I admit putting in a little, like any one else, but my man must have put in more and made money of it (Laughter.)-Mr. Hughes : How much water did you generally put into a churn? About five or six quarts.-Ur. Hughes : That is under 10 per cent , for which you know the Board does not prosecute.And now you think that your servant has followed your example?-I do.-Mr. Hughes : That is possible; but the responsibility rests with you. Mr. Hughes pressed for a severe penalty, and pointed out the large profits which milksellers could make by such offences.-Mr, Marsham said heavy penalties were generally reserved for repeated convictions, but he could not treat this as an ordinary first oase, and fined defendant $3 and costs. Lime-Water and the Bale of Food and Drugs Act :- In the Summons Court at the Nottiegham Town Hall, on August loth, before Nr. Bldn and Mr. Dobson, Mr. James Goodall, chemist of Sneinton Road, was summoned for having sold lime-water not of the nature and quality of the article asked for.Mr. Farmer (from the Town Clerk’s office) appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Cam defended. Mr. Farmer stated that the prosecution was instituted by the Health Committee of the Corporation, and the defendant was summoned for selling what was called lime-water, but which they contended was not so according to the provisions of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, 1875. The Inspector of Nuisances, Mr. Richards, purohased some of the so-called lime- water from the defendant, and took it to the Borough Analyst,, who certified that it was not lime-water in the ordinary aweptation of the term, as it was deficient in the usual quantity of lime to the extent of 47 per cent. Lime-water proper was water holding in solution the largest quantity of lime that it was capable of containing.The Bench would see that thnt was a serious case as at the present time lime-water mas being very freely prescribed by doctors for infants. It was very essential that the attention of chemists should be called to the provisions of the Act. Mr. Cam pleaded guilty on behalf of his client, and, no evidence being offered, the defendant was fined $5. Mr. Frank White, chemiet, of London Road, pleaded guilty to a simiiar charge, and mas also fined S5. A Standard for Porter :- At the last County Antrim Assizes, Mr. James Dempsey, brewer, of Belfast, brought an action for libel against Dr. Charles A. Cameron, of Dublin, Public Analyst for the County of Down. The action arose out of a certificate and reports issued by Dr. Cameron. In June, 1881, Dr.Cameron received from a constable, Dunne, Food Inspectoi at Rolywood, County of Down, a sample of porter for analysis. The article had been purchased from a publican named Anderson. Dr. Cameron certified that it con- tained 385 per cent. of solids, and 5 per cent. of alcohol by volume, or 4 per cent. by weight. He further stated that it was a debased article, being poorer than the average quality of Irish porter. The publican was fined 35 by the Court of Petty Sessions. Mr. Dempsey, the brewer of the porter, appeared at the sessions, and at his suggestion the vendor appealed to the Quarter Sessions at Downpatrick, Dr. Cameron was summoned to give evldence in person. He stated that according to his large experience Irish porter should contain from 5 to 9 per cent.of solids, and from 5 to 8 per cent. of alcohol by volume. E e believed that the porter in question was largely prepared from saccharine matter. The decision of the Lower Court was affirmed. Subsequently Dr. Cameron reported to the Grand Jury of the County the facts of the caBe, and in a further report incidentally referred to it as a ‘‘ debased article.” The action was against the Analyst by the brewer of the porter. For the plaintiff, practical brewers were examined to prove that porter often contained less solid matter than 4 per cent. Dr. C. R. C. Tichborne, Professor of Chemistry, and President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, was examined for the defence, and proved that according to his experience the solids in porter did not fall below 5 per cent.when the alcohol was less than 5 per cent. The jury almost immediately found for the defendant on all the issues-namely (1) whether or not the article was debased, (2) whether or not the defendant acted bona fide in reporting to the Grand Jury, and (3) whether or not the plaintiff was injured by the defendant’s reports.THE ANALYST. 183 In the Southern Division of the Dublin Police Court last month, Mr. William Woodlock presiding, Patrick Byrne, 38, Barrack Street, baker and milk contractor to the gamison was summoned at the suit of Mr. David Toler, food inspector, for having, on July 25th, supphed a quantity of new milk for the use of the 1st Battalion East Kent Regiment, stationed at the Ship Street Barracks, which was adulterated with 243 per cent. of added water.Mr. Richard Adams prosecuted, and Mr. Philip Keogh defended. The adulteration represents nearly two and a half gallons of water to one gallon of milk. Inspector Toler deposed that on July 26 last he attended at the Ship Street Barracks, and saw Owen Donegan, one of the defendant’s men, delivering milk at the cook-house, and took a sample, stating that it was for analysis. Witness offered to divide it with the man, as provided by the statute, but the offerwas declined. The milk was rtnalysed by Dr. Cameron, who certified the adulteration mentioned. On the 27th the defendant asked witness could he stop the prosecution against him from the Ship Street Barracks. Toler replied, No ; that he had his duty to do. Cross-examined by E. Eeogh : After he took the sample he suggested to the colonel of the regiment that he knew a very good man to supply milk.Tbat was not part of his business as a corporation official. He named a Mr. Costigan, to whom he had never spoken up to that. Subsequently he advised Costigan to apply for the contract. He wrote to the qunrteimaster of the Devon Regiment at the Royal Barracks to ask did the defendant supply pure milk there. The anmer was in the affirmative. The quartermaster at Ship Street stated they were perfectly contented with the milk supplied, and that it had stood their tests. He iecommended Costigan to the colonel of the East Kent Regiment, because he kept very good milk. Witness was now aware that the day he took the sample the place was almost deserted, owing to the sports going on at the Richmond Barraoks where the men were.When he acquainted the colonel of the adulteration, he suggested that it would look very bad if, in the event of a prosecution, it turned out that the same contractor was still supplying his regiment. In reply to Mr. Adams, the witness said he had no corrupt or interested motive8 in mentioning Mr. Uostigan’s name. In reply to the bench, witness said he knew nothing of this 243 per cent. of added water to the defendant’s milk until after the analysis was made, There was no plot against Mr, Byrne that he knew of. Mr. Keogh: It is intolerable that this public officer should be a prosecutor of one milk vendor and a canvasser for another. Mr. Woodlock said that might be all very well for another place, and perhaps would be very serious. Lieutenant-Quartermaster Coombs, 1st Eattalion East Kent (Buffs) Itegiment, deposed that Byrne was engaged when the corps was at Birr, under orders for Dublin, to supply vegetables and milk to the men, receiving a penny per day per man in the mess.The regimental cook-sergeant tested the milk, and had never reported it bad. AS a matter of routine no officer of superior rank was present, but if any complaints were made another investigation would be held. Tolcr said Byme’s milk was very bad, and strongly urged him to get supplies from Costigan. I t aroused their suspicious to find a public inspector condemning one milk and recommending another, and the colonel asked witness to tell his worship. Mr. Adams : I object to this. The colonel should come himself if he has anything to say.Further evidence having been given, 8 fine of 320 was imposed. Mr. Keogh said he would appeal. RECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS. The following spocifications have been recently published, and can be obtained from the Great Seal Office, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, London. No. 4732 El. J. Haddan . . . . Manufacture of Luminous Paints or Colours . . . . . . 4d. 6034 L. 9. Thompson and C. C. Starling . . . . . . Photometria Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d. 6329 H. C, L, Dyer . . . . the Removal of Impurities . . . . . . . . . . 2d. Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . la. Temperature of Coal Cargoes . . . . . . . . 6d. Printing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. 1882. Name of Patentee. Title of Patent. Prim Treatment of Ingots of Steel and other Malleable Metals for 6240 L.M. Casella . . . . Apparatus for Indicating and Recording the Pressure of the 1888. 28 T. Rowan . . . . . . Apparatus for Denoting and Indicating any hcrease in the 79 C. D. Abel . . . . . . Production of Coloring Matters suitable for Dyeing and184 THE ANALYST . 1883 No . Name of Patenfee . 82 W . Johnstone .. 87 J . Caley . . . . 96 W . Weldon . . . . 98 . . . . . . 99 . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . 155 J . Brocklehnrst .. 139 F . Wirth . . . . 152 W . P . Thompson .. 153 W . P . Thompson .. 157 F . Wirth . . . . 159 A . H . Dunnachie .. 241 S . H . Emmens .. 246 C . M . Pielsticken .. 257 P . Casamajor .. 2341 H . H.Lake . . . . 2351 G.Downie . . . . 218 F . Wirth . . . . 227 H . M . L . 0 . Von Roden .. 240 R . Stone . . . . . . 242 M . Zingler . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 245 J . H . Barry . . . . . . 284 A . Fryer and J . B . Alliott .. 292 W . A . Rowell . . . . 293 W . A . Rowell . . . . 302 H.E. Newton . . . . 275 A . Muirhead . . . . 204 J . Mackenzie . . . . 332 J . Young . . . . . . 337 H . J . Haddan . . . . 362 Baron G . de Overbeck . . 367 H . J . Haddan . . . . 434 J.Young . . . . . . 438 S . G . Thomas & T . Twyman 640 N . M.Henderson . . . . Title of Patent . Prim Solvent or Emulsion for use with Ptbints. Pigments. &c . . . Explosive or Injurious Gases in Cod Mines . . . . 6d . Manufacture of Sulphuric Acid . . . . . . . . . . 4d . Manufacture of Chlorates . . . . . . . . . . 2d . Recovery of Sulphur from Alkali Waste .. . . . . . . 2d . Recovery of Sulphur from Alkali Waste . . . . . . . . 2d . Calcining Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d . Production of Aniline . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d . Manufacture of Hydraulic and other Cements. Mortar. Mi- ficircl Stone. &c . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d . Separating Volatile from Non-Volatile Substances . . . . 6d . Recovering Ammonia from Gases of Various Kinds . . . . 2d . Making Silica Bricks . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d . Reduction of Metallic Ores . . . . . . . . . . 4d . Preservation of Alimentary Substances . . . . . . . . 6d . Filtering Saccharine and other Solutions . . . . . . 4d . Vulcanizing and otherwise treating Compounds of Caoutchouc. &c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d . Removal and Prevention of Scale in Boilers . . . . . . 2d . 2d . Apparatus for Indicating and Registering the Presence of Red Colouring Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d . Preserving Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d . Manufacture of Artificial Stone . . . . . . . . . . 2d . Combination and Treatment of certain Materials for the Production of Substitutes for Gutta-percha and Indiarubber 4d . Combined Anti-Fouling and Preserving Composition. appli- cable to Ships’ Bottoms . . . . . . . . . . 4d . Manufacture of Sugar. and Machinery or Apparatus therefor 114 . Manufacture of Salts of Strontia and Oxide of Stroniium . . 4d . Manufacture of Salts of Strontia and Oxide of Strontium . . 4d . Applying Alternating Electric Currents to the Production of Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d . Furnaces for the Treatment of Materials for the Production of Sulphates of Soda and Potash . . . . . . . . 2d . Treatment of Sewage . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d . Process for the Manufacture of Glauber’s Salt free from Iron 4d . Process and Apparatus for the Production of Metallic Alumi- nium and Aluminium Alloys . . . . . . . . . . 6d . Removing Vegetable Impurities from Wool . . . . . . 2d . Treating Sewage Water . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d . Manufacture of Phosphates . . . . . . . . . . 4d . Distilhug or Refining Mueral Oils . . . . . . . . 8d . Brewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d . BOOKS. &o., RECEIVED . The Chemist and Druggist ; The Brewers’ Guardian ; The British Medical Journal ; The Medical Press ; The Pharmaceutical Journal ; The Sanitary Recoid ; The NiUer ; The Provisioner ; The Practitioner ; New Remedies ; Pioceedings of the American Chemical Society ; Scienoe ; The Inventors’ Record ; New Yorli Public Health ; The Scientific American ; Society of Bits Journal ; Sanitary Engineer of New York ; Cowkeeper and Dairyman’s Journal ; Sugar Uane ; Country Brewers’ Gazette ; The Medical Record; The Grocers’ Gazette; London Water Supply. by Crookes. Odlwg and Tidy; Chemical Review ; Independent 011 and Drug Journal and Paint Review ; Science Monthly ; Journal of the Wiety of Chemical Industry ; Tobacco ; Agricultural Chemical Analysis. by Dr . F . Percy Frankland .

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8830800173

出版商:RSC    

年代:1883

数据来源: RSC