|
11. |
Law reports |
|
Analyst,
Volume 4,
Issue 38,
1879,
Page 96-98
Preview
|
PDF (313KB)
|
|
摘要:
THE ANALYST. LAW REPORTS. TINCTURE OF cArd:pEOR.-Robert Bennett, chemist, King-street, Sheffield, was summoned under the 7th Section of the Sale of Food of Drugs Act, 1875, for selling a compound article or drug not composed of the ingredients in accordance with the demands of the purchaser. The Town Clerk (Mr. J. Yeomans) appeared to prosecute. Inspector Brammer, in February last, purchased from the defendant eight ounces of compound tincture of camphor, for which he paid 1s.Sd. He afterwards submitted a portion of it to Mr. A. H. Allen, the Borough Analyst. Mr. Allen’s report was to the effect that his analysis showed that the compound contained 34 per cent. of alcohol, instead of 48 per cent. I t also contained a mere trace of benzoic acid, and only a trace of oil of aniseed.Dr. Hime, Medical Officer of Health, said that the absence of the proper proportion of ingredients would prevent the article from having the effeat it should have. Mr. Bennett naid he was prepared to swear that the whole of the ingredients as required by the Pharmacopceia were in the compound in their proper proportions, with the exception of the spirit. The farriers required a weaker sort of spirit, and by mistake that spirit had been got hold of.He had been in business all his life, and this was the first time he had infringed the Act, A fine of $5 and costs was imposed. ADULTERAT~CD COFFEE.-& ’the Derby Borough Police-court, lately, Mr. Frederick George Innocent was summoned on the complaint of Mr. Clarke, inspector under the Act, for Belling to him a quarter of a pound of what purported to be coffee, but which was not of the nature and substance of coffee.Mr. Clarke went to the defendant’s grocery and provision shop in DepGt Street, and purchased a quarter of a pound of coffee for 4d. He then told the defendant that he was the inspector under the Food and Drugs Act for this borough, and had bought the coffee for examination by the Public Analyst.Defendant said-“ All right ; I know my coffee is all right. I buy it all right.” Witness divided the coffee into three parts, which he seded, and handed one part to the defendant, kept one himself (which he now produced), and handed the third to Dr. Goode, the Public Analyst. On March 28th he received a certificate from Dr. Goode, which stated that the coffee was mixed with 60 per cent.of chicory. Defendant said he was not at home often, and the shop was left almost entirely to his wife. The Chairman : But you are responsible, and you served the officer with the coffee-at lea&, with coffee and chicory, when he asked for coffee. The benoh fined the defendant 10s. and oosts, including the Analyst’s fee of Sl 1s.They also expressed their satisfaction that these cases of adulteration were being taken up, as poor people were those who suffered most by them. ADULTEBATED CFfOCOIATE.-At the Teignmouth Pofioe-oourt, J. W. fknvton, grocer, of Newton Abbot and Shaldon, appeared in answer to an adjourned summons, in which he was charged by Supt. Moore with having sold an article of food represented to be chocolate, but which was not of the nature and substance of ohooolate, being adulteratedwith a mixture of coffee, arrowroot, and sugar.Supt. Mow stated that he went to the defendant’s shop at Shaldon, and asked the assistant if he had any cocoa except that in packages. The assistant said he had not, and witness then asked if he had any chocolate. The assistant replied that he had, and witness asked to see it.The assistant then took some out of a tin canister on the counter, labelled “Chocolate,” and showed it to him. Witness asked if it was pure chocolate, and the assistant said it was, and that they sold a good deal of it. Witness then asked for six ounces, which the assistant weighed up. It was first put up in one parcel ; but afterwards, at witness’s request, it was made up into three parcels of two ounces each, one of whicli he handed back to the assistant, and another he kept, whilst the third, fastened and sealed, he sent to Dr.Blyth, Barnstaple, the County Analyst. A few days afterwards he received Dr. Blyth’s certificate of the analysis, as follows :-“I am of opinion that the sample is a sample of adulterated cocoa.The sample is not chocolate at all, and should not be sold as such. It is a mixture of cocoa, arrowroot and sugar, The per-centage of cocoa does not exceed 45.0 per cent.” Supt. Moore said he paid aid. for the packets, and he proceeded to state that since the last hearing he had again written to Dr. Blyth, on the s-hject of chocolate, and he (Dr. Blyth) had replied as follows :-‘‘ I am not aware of the existence of a i y substance in commerce sold under the name of ‘ chocolate powder.’ Chocolate itself is a paste, whioh is manufactured by grinding cocoa nibs in a mill, the rollers of which are heated by steam to soften the cocoa butter.The paste is afterwards mixed with refined sugar and a few flavouring matters, such as vanilla, almonds, cinnamon, cloves, &c.No arrowroot is used. On the other hand, cocoa is either sold in the form of nibs, which is simply the roasted seed deprived of its covering, or as flake cocoa, which is the seeds ground in a particular way. Lastly, the various mixed cocoas of commerm are incorporated with sugar, arrowroot, &c., and aold under various names, such RB Soluble Cocoa, Homaopathic COCOA, Epps’s Coco&, &o, Suoh are now almost invarialbly sold in paokets, stating on aTEE ANALYBT.97 label that the article is a mixture. If a person asks for chocolate, he expects to get the paste as above described, with certainly no admixture of arrowroot; if he asks for cocoa, then cocoa pure and simple must be given, unless it is definitely stated by label or otherwise that the article is mixed.” Defendant here produced a large tin canister, labelled ‘‘ Taylor Brothers’ Chocolate Powder,” and Supt.Moore admitted that he was supplied from the tin, or one of that kind. He added that he was not aware there was any difference between chocolate and chocolate powder. He asked for chocolate and he believed he had got what he asked for. In cross-examination Supt.Moore said he did not know there was such an article as Chocolate Menier, but he had heard of chocolate creams. He was positive that when the assistant took out some of the contents of the tin he did not say it was chocolate powder. The chairman asked the witness if he expected to get the article he asked for in powder or in substance. SUpt. Moore replied that he did not know in which form he should receive it.Defendant thereupon took the objection that the article had not been sold “ to the prejudice ” of Supt. Moore, because he did not know what he wanted to buy. Supt. Moore admitted that he did not know there was such B thing as chocolate powder. Defendant said there was no such thing as pure chocolate ; it was s manufactured article.Some was sold at 64d. per lb. to meet the wants of the poorer classes, whilst Chocolate Menier and chocolate cake, being of a superior quality, were sold at 1s. 8d. per lb. John Peake, manager of defendant’s branch shop at Shaldon, said when Supt. Moore asked him for chocolate he replied that he had chocolate powder. He then showed Supt. Moore part of the contents of the tin produced, told him it contained chocolate powder, and called his attention to the label on the tin Go that effwt.Defendant said as a matter of fact in the grocery trade there were many sorts of chocolate. It did not grow, like ooffee, but was an admixture : there was no standard for chocolate, and never had been. In Nuttall’s dictionary chocolate was defined as ‘( an alimentary paste or cake, composed of the kernels of cocoa- nuts, roasted, ground, and mixed with other ingredients ; ” and in Royle’s “ Manual of Materia Medics ” it was stated, ‘‘ Chocolate is an artificial compound, prepared with cocoa, B U ~ ~ S , c3taroh, vanilla, cizIl1amon, &c.” Since the last hearing he had written to two of the principal houses in the country on the subject.Messrs.Cadbury Brothers, cocoa and chocolate manufacturers, of Birmingham, wrote, “ The word chocolate implies a mixture of cocoa with other ingredients, and is understood as such when it passes the Customs, whereas the genuine article always passes through the Customs as coooa.’ We, therefore, never call anything cocoa unless it is a perfectly genuine article.” Mesers. Taylor Brothers, cocoa and chocolate manufa&urers, of London, wrote, “In selling Chocolate it is not necessary t o declare or affix a label ; the word ‘ chocolate ’ itself, meaning an admixture, is suilicient.” Being an admixture of a manufactured article, there could, defendant maintained, be no adulteration ; and the price of the article asked for was a guide as to the quality required. The ohairman said it was a very di3icult point for the bench to decide upon. It was stated that chocolate was asked for, and that the article supplied was sold as chocolate, whereas the County Analyst said it was simply not chocolate at all.Defendant remarked that Dr. Blyth had made a s t a n h d for himself. The chairman went on to say that, as there was no such thing as Chocolate, it was immaterial whether the superintendent was supplied with chocolate or chocolate powder ; and as there was such dif%culty in hying down what chocolate actually was, the bench had no other course to pursue than to dismiss the summons. It was not proved to them-in fact it was proved to the contrary-that there was any such thing as real chooolate, although it was included in the list of articles of food for Supt.Moore to examine to find if they were adulterated. Defendant mid if the benoh had decided the case against him he should have carried it to a higher court, as the matter was an important one to the grocery trade. The chairman admitted that it raised a very important point, and said he did not thiuk they could have settled it in any other way than $hey had.ALUM IN BmaD.-Thomas Smith, baker and flour dealer, Pendleton, appeared at the Police-court, in answer to a summons which charged him with having sold adulterated bread. Mr. Walker, assistant to tho Town Clerk, prosecuted, and Mr. Bennet defended. Mr. C. Thompstone, the inspector under the Act, stated that he visited the defendant’s shop on the 25th March and bought samples of bread and flour. Whilemaking the purchase the defendant came in and began to speak about dealing with a respectable firm for flour, and remarked to witness that I ‘ if anything there would be something in the Auetrian flour.” Mr.J. C. Bell, the Borough Analyst, said he had made analyses of the bread and flow submitted to hh by the last witness. He found the bread to contain alum to the amount of 16 grains fo the four-pound loaf.The flour he found to be perfectly pure. In answer to Mr. Bennet, the mitness said he was not sware that it was easier to knead the dough when alum was mixed with the dam. when the flour had become bad alum made it work up easier. Mr. Bennet, on behalf of his client, pleaded that though it was true the bread was baked on the defendant’s premises, Mr, Smith never entered tho bakehouse, and did not pee the workmen.He could not, therefore, have committed98 THE ANALYST. the offence for his own benefit. It was certainly easier to work up flour, and there was no doubt the men in the bakehouse had put alum in the flour to save them trouble. He thought the magistrates would come to the conclusion that though the defendant was liable to a fine the-defendant’s was not a bad case.Mr. Bennet called two of the defendant’s employes to prove that the defendant was not in the habit of visiting his bakehouse. Mr. Makinson said in his opinion that mas a bad case. A good deal of alum had evidently been put in the flour. The defendant would pay a fine of $10 and costs. It was stated to the magistrate shortly afterwards that the defendant refused to pay the fine. The defendant came before the court and gave as a reason for not paying the fine that he wanted to ask the Analyst a question and had not been allowed. Mr. Makinson informed the defendant that when he had counsel to defend him he (the defendant) could not address the Court and ask questions as well. The defendant said he had only seen Mr. Bennet that morning. Mr. Makinson said he s3ould have done 80 earlier ; that was his own fault. He made an order for distraint upon the defendant’s goods in payment of the fise should he still refuse, asd in default of having goods to distrain upon the defendant would have fourteen daye’ imprisonment. The defendant said he would pay the fine.
ISSN:0003-2654
DOI:10.1039/AN8790400096
出版商:RSC
年代:1879
数据来源: RSC
|
12. |
Notes of the month |
|
Analyst,
Volume 4,
Issue 38,
1879,
Page 98-100
Preview
|
PDF (280KB)
|
|
摘要:
98 THE ANALYST. NOTES OF THE MONTH. A very interesting case to Analysts has taken place since our last. A brewer iu Donnhgton has been charged with adding sugar to hie malt wort without possessing a licence to do 80. I t is always unsatisfactory to discuss a case of disputed analysis on the ordinary printed reports which are seldom perfectly accurate, but the following is an abstract of the proceedings as detailed in the iiewspaper before us.It seems that the officers entered the premises on the 26th November last, and found a brewing commenced before the specified time. They accordingly took samples of the wort, and sent the same to Somerset House, where the analysis was commenced by a Mr. Burge, one of the assistants, early on the 27th. The grains having been gauged by the officer, mere found to correspond with the quantity of malt entered as used, and no sugar was found upon the premises, so that the whole case hinged upon Mi.Burge’s analysis. He found the density to be 1092, and 12.72 per cent. of sugar natural to malt )’ with 8-48 of cane sugar. The report does not state the process employed, but it appears, from subsequent indications, to have been the usual determination of glucose by Fehling,)’ and then another determination, after inversion, ca;lculating the excess of copper used to cane sugar. The evidence of Mr.Burge was supported by Messrs. Bannister and Harkness, who had no doubt (from examining his results) as to the presence of cane.sugar in the sample, and they further stated that, owing to the rapid conversion of cane sugar into glucose, and glucose into alcohol, such an analysis would be perfectly useless unless commenced within two or three days.They also asserted that, iri fact, this very sample in dispute had lost all its sugar on the 5th December, and this is no doubt an important factor in the case. On the other side Mr, Hehner was called, who received the duplicate from the brewer on Narch Srd, 1879.It then had n specific gravity of 1088, which he stated, “was a difference as against 1092 not worth si>:aking of, and my sample was as fresh as if just taken.” He did not find a particl- of cane sugar in it, although the analysis of the chemists for the prosecution was practically his OWL 6 L The majority of modern chemists think that there is no glucose in malt, but maltose, the latter making half as much again as what was called glucose.The malt wort caloulated in this way would show no cane sugm.” In a subsequent letter to a contemporary, Mr. Hehner further explains his views, which, omitting some rather strong language (always undesirable in a scientific discussion) m e as follows :THE ANALYST. 99 ’‘ Upon the composition of genuine malt the case depended.Now a number of years ago it was pointed out by Continental chemists, and more recently was conclusively. proved by English investigators, that malt and mdt wort does not, as was formerly believed, contain a modification of sugar called glucose, but an altogether different substance, maltose. Numbers of modern chemists have placed this fact beyond dispute.It should have been the plain duty of the Excise chemists, either to alter their exploded notions as to the composition of malt, or they should have at once and publicly disproved their opponents’ statements. A middle way seems to me to be impossible. “ But, marvellous to state, in the case against Mr. Kidd they actually ignore altogether the modern researches ag to the substance called maltose, upon which the whole case turned ; they did not deny its existence ; they did not disprove it ; they merely shut their eyes and ears, and deolared virtually that they did not want to know anything about it.‘I If there had really been cane sugar in the malt wort it would have been a comparatively easy matter to get it out of it again in the crystallised state, fit to be produced as incontrovertible evidence in town.They contend that it is impossible to get the cane sugar out of the liquor ; but the thing has been done, and I myself Rrn ready to do it.” We have thus shortly placed before our readers the germs of ‘‘ a very pretty quarrel as it stands,” and would, before iualring remarks ourselves, call attention to the import- ance of the subject, and ask for any communication our friends may be pleased t o send p o or con, so that so important a matter may be thoroughly ventilated.No doubt the Excise chemists have many practical results on the point, for which we should be glad to find space, if they think fit to send them; and Mr. Hehner will dso doubtless be able to give some experiments in support of his views, While looking over the Brewers’ Guardian, which, of course, has something to say on the above case, we were struck with the idea, that it is very amusing to notice how the trade journals, ~113 delight in applauding Somerset House when it goes against an malyst, can, at the same time, write ageinst those they flatter, when they in turn decide against a trader. Verily popularitywith all is difficult of attainment ! Perhaps it is undesirable. Apropos of the mention of the proposed Adulteration Act for America at the last meeting of the Society, we may state that on February 27th last, a bill to prohibit the dilution of milk was introduced into the United States Legislature. The Act not only proposes to punish dilution, but pronounces all milk obtained from animals fed on any substance in a state of putrefaction or fermentation to be impure and unwhole- some milk within the meaning of the Act.” The diEculty will be to obtain evidence of such feeding, otherwise the idea is a very good sanitary precaution.We have before had occasion to point out the lamentable manner in which the journal of a great corporation like the Pharmaceutical Society is occasionally made the vehicle of venting personal spleen, and ignoring the claims of those privately distasteful to certain parties.This occurred noticably in connection with the organization scheme, and now again it crops up in a most unpatriotic, unjust manner, on the question of butter analysis. When Messrs. Angel1 and Hehner published their.book on butter it was met by the editor of the Pharmaceutical Journal with a most cutting review, in which misprints were taken advantage of to detract from its value, and the uselessness of the process and absurdity of the conclusions broadly hinted at. Since then the successive researches of DuprB, Muter, Jones and others, which have culminated in perfecting md reducing to exactness the butter process as now universally employed in England, have been invariably passed over in complete silence by this journal, which100 THE ANALYST.professes to keep au couraNt with chemical science. But the moment a foreign ohemist happens to plagiarize the process, and write a paper, giving in his own name what is practically the English method of butter analysis, as perfected by the members of our Society and published in THE ANALYST, forthwith the Pharntacsutical Journal wakes up to the faot, and the full English process of butter analysis appears-not in the names of its originators and improvers, but in that of a Mr.H. Hager, whose name was never heard of before in connection with butter analysis. Perish the thought of recognising home researches ; never mind what occurs at our very doors, so long as we can bring in a foreigner to take the credit in the minds of the members of the Pharmaceutica,l Society.Surely the readere of the Pharmaceutical Journal must have known all that is in Mr. Hager’s paper long ago, or else they are sadly behind the times. M i . A. h g e l l has been appointed Public Analyst for Newport, Isle of Wight; Mr.E. H. Moore has been appointed Public Analyst for Chichester. Mr. T. H. WaJker has been appointed Public Analyst for Carlisle. Mr. J. Baynes has been appointed Public Analyst for Grimsby. also for the Borough of Guildford. ON THE WORK DONE BY PUBLIC ANALYSTS UNDER THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT DURING 1878. A PRINTER’S error occurs in the second paragraph of the paper on this subject, published on page 67 of our last number.The percentage of adulteration during the last few years should be as follows:- During the time of the Lancet Commission . . . . . . . . 65.0 ,, 1872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 ,, 1875-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 ,, 1877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 ,, 1878 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 16.58 THE SANITARY FLUID. THIS is the disinfectant which was adopted by the authorities at Woolwich for use during the recovery of the bodies from the wreck of the Primers Alice, and the mere fact that its use under such trying conditions proved satisfactory says something in its favour. In chemical composition it is essentially a solution of an alkaline hypochlorite, with slight excess of alkali.Hence the liberation of chlorine is slow and fairly constant for some time. Two experiments on samples of urine gave satisfactory results, as putrefaction was retarded for several days longer than in similar samples treated with carbolic mid solution. ........ -. RECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS. The following specifications have been published during the past month, and can be obtained from the Greet Seal Office, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, London.1878. NO. 3163 3262 3282 3315 3341 3386 3489 3618 3701 3783 5016 Xame of Patentee. J. Sohwartz . . . . . . . . A. P. Price . . . . . . . . A. A. Croll . . . . . . . . C. W. Siemens . . , . . , J. P. Rickman . . . . . . R. W. Papineau . , . , , , J. Wraith and G. A. Downs, . . , A. R. Molison .. . . . . J. Mnotear . . . . . . . . H. Gaskell . . . . . . . . H. J. Haddan.. . . . . . . Title of Patent. Prioe. Manufacture of Sugar . . . . . . . . . . Treatment of Saccharine Substances . . . . . . Manufacture of Sulphate of Alumina . . . . . . Apparatus for Eleotric Lighting . . . . . . Manufactureof Ammonia . . . . . . . . Emplofing Bisulphide of Carbon, for recovering various substances . . . . . . . . . . Preparing and Dyeing Fabrics . . . . . . . . Electrical Apparatus for Igniting Gas Apparatus for obtaining Sulphurous Acid . . . . Manufactureof Alkali . . . . . . . . . . Treating Ores containing Silver and Copper . . . . . . . . 2d. 6d. 4d. 2d. 6d. 6d. 6d. 6d. 6d. 2d. 4d. BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. The Chemist and Druggist ; The Brewers’ Guardian ; The British Medical Journal ; The Medical Press ; The Pharmaceutical Journal ; The Sanitary Record ; The Miller ; The Anti-Adulteration Review; Journal of Applied Science; The Boston Journal of Chemistry; The Dairymu; The American Dairyman ; The Praotitioner ; American New Remedies ; Proceedings of the dmeripan Ghemicd Society ; Le Praticien ; The Inventors’ Record ; Eleotrio Lighting, by R. P. Spice.
ISSN:0003-2654
DOI:10.1039/AN8790400098
出版商:RSC
年代:1879
数据来源: RSC
|
|