ADJUSTMENT. See SHIPPING. 1. OFFENCES GENERALLY. certificate on which the proceedings under the section are founded should state that the Hull V. article is injurious to health. Horsnell, 92 L. T. 81; 2 L. G. R. 1280; 68 J. P. 591; 20 Cox, C. C. 759; 21 T. L. R. 32-D. Colouring of Preserved VegetablesSulphate of Copper in Peas.]-Where on analysis a 1 lb. bottle of peas was found to contain three grains of sulphate of copper (equal to eight-tenths of a grain of metallic copper) inserted by the manufacturers for the purpose of preserving, fixing or of restoring the natural colour of the peas :-Held, that the article was thereby rendered injurious to health within the meaning of s. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Summers v. Grist, [1896] 60 J. P. 346. Νο Cream Mixed with Boracic Acid.]— The appellant, a grocer, upon an application for two pots of cream served the person applying with two pots of cream each bearing a label with the words, Rich cream. This cream contains a small percentage of boron preservative to retard sourness. Perfectly delicious." The cream contained 0.313 per cent. of boracic acid as a preservative. indication beyond the label was given to the purchaser as to the composition of the cream. Under these circumstances the appellant was convicted, under s. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, of selling an article of food, to wit, cream, which was mixed with boracic acid so as to render the article injurious to health, and the conviction was upheld by quarter sessions. The quarter sessions found that cream mixed with boracic acid to the extent above mentioned is, as regards grown men and women, uninjurious, but that it is injurious to the health of children invalids -Held, on a case stated by quarter sessions, that, on this finding, the conviction was right in the particular circumstances. Quære, whether the conviction could have stood preserved if the article had been sold as cream,' or with some fuller indication as to its nature. Cullen v. M'Nair, 99 L. T. 358; 72 J. P. 376; 6 L. G. R. 753; 21 Cox, C. C. 682; 24 T. L. R. 692-D. and "Article of Food' Mixture with Ingredient Injurious to Health Cream and Boric Acid-Preserved Cream.]-Preserved cream sold under that name and being a mixture of cream and boric acid, is not in itself a separate article of food within the meaning of s. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and the seller is guilty under that section of selling an article of foodnamely, cream-mixed with an ingredient so as to render the article injurious to health. Observations by Darling, J., to the contrary in Cullen v. McNair (99 L. T. 358; 72 J. P. 376) disapproved. Haigh v. Aerated Bread Co., 85 L. J., K. B. 880; [1916] 1 K. B. 878; 114 L. T. 1000; 80 J. P. 284; 14 L. G. R. 665; 25 Cox, C. C. 378; 32 T. L. R. 427-D. Selling Article of Inferior Quality, but Undiluted with any Foreign Substance, at Inferior Price, whether Criminal.] - Where no definite standard of quality there is of an of 1. OFFENCES GENERALLY. article, it is not a the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, 8. 6, to sell as such article at a low price an inferior quality of the article undiluted with any foreign substance. A person was convicted of a contravention of s. 6, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, by selling as cream an article not of the quality of cream. It was proved that several qualities of cream were known to the public, and that the cream sold on the occasion libelled was one of these, and was sold at a fair price, and though diluted with 34 per cent. of skim milk, was unmixed with any foreign substance :-Held, that there was no contravention of the Act libelled, and conviction quashed. Morton V. Green, [1881] 18 S. L. R. 570. contravention | By s. 3, any person who shall sell any article of food or drink, knowing the same to have been mixed with any other substance, with intent fraudulently to increase its weight or bulk, and who shall not declare such admixture to any purchaser before delivering the same, shall be deemed to have sold an adulterated article of food or drink under the Act. An information was laid against a provision and butter dealer for that he sold as unadulterated an article of food, to wit, butter which was adulterated. It was proved that an inspector of nuisances went to his shop and asked for a pound of butter at 7d., and the shopman handed him a pound, his master being present; on being analysed, it was proved to have been largely adulterated with lard, tallow, or material of that nature. The magistrate was of opinion that it was necessary to prove that the butter when sold was represented as unadulterated, and that it was also necessary to prove that the dealer knew that the butter had been mixed with some other substance, with intent fraudulently to increase its weight or bulk, and he therefore dismissed the information :-Held, first, that it was not necessary that any express representation that the article sold was unadulterated should be made at the time of sale of a simple article like butter; butter was asked for, and something handed over as butter, and that was selling as unadulterated. Fitzpatrick v. Kelly, 42 L. J., M. C. 132; L. R. 8 Q. B. 337; 28 L. T. 558; 21 W. R. 681. Chewing gum "-Paraffin Wax.]— On the hearing of two informations under ss. 3 and 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, it was proved or admitted before the justices that the appellant was a shopkeeper, carrying on business at 5 P. Road, T., where he retailed sweets and groceries. On May 13, 1899, the respondent visited the appellant's shop, and purchased some chewing gum." Each of the packets of "chewing gum was labelled B. & Co.'s chewing. This must not be eaten. For chewing only." The respondent, after looking at the packets and reading the labels, asked the price, and bought three-pennyworth. It was proved, or admitted, that the " chewing gum was sold as an article to be chewed and not as an article to be eaten. It could not be dissolved by the saliva of the mouth, nor could it be masticated by the teeth. It was, however, capable of being swallowed whole, although it was not intended to be swallowed. Paraffin wax was one of the ingredients, and each packet contained 8.3 per cent. thereof. The wax was an essential ingredient. Paraffin wax if received into the stomach was injurious to health, and the quantity of wax in the packets was sufficient to make the article as a sweet injurious to health if passed into the stomach. If swallowed, therefore, it was injurious to health, but if it was used in the manner in which it was intended to be used-namely, for chewing-it was not in any way injurious to health. The justices convicted the appellant :-Held, that on the facts the justices were wrong. Bennett v. Tyler, 81 L. T. 787; 64 J. P. 119; 19 Cox, C.C. 434 -D. Representation at Time of Sale.]-To constitute an offence under s. 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the representation of the nature, substance, and quality of the article must be made at the time of the sale. A prior false representation in this respect is no offence within the Act, provided a true one is made at the time the sale actually takes place. Kirk v. Coates, 55 L. J., M. C. 182; 16 Q. B. D. 49; 54 L. T. 178; 34 W. R. 295; 50 J. P. 148. By 35 & 36 Vict. c. 74, s. 2 (repealed), every person who shall sell as unadulterated any article of food or drink which is adulterated . . . shall forfeit a penalty not exceeding £20. 1 any Declaration of Impurity.1-The 35 & 36 Vict. c. 74, s. 3 (repealed), enacts, that person who shall sell any article of food. knowing the same to have been mixed with any other substance, with intent fraudulently to increase its weight or bulk, and who shall not declare such admixture to any purchaser thereof before delivering the same and no other, shall be deemed to have sold an adulterated article of food . . . under this act ":Held, that a person who had sold mustard admixed with flour and turmeric, substances not injurious to health, declaring at the time of such sale that he did not sell the article as pure mustard, had been guilty of no offence under the statute, and that it was not necessary, in order to comply with s. 3, that he should declare the nature and proportion of the substances admixed. Pope v. Tearle, 43 L. J., M. C. 129; L. R. 9 C. P. 499; 30 L. T. 789; 22 W. R. 950. Scienter.]-Held, secondly, that S. 3 (repealed), whatever might be its effect, was not intended to cut down s. 2; it was merely adding an additional offence, and that, therefore, it was not necessary to prove that the butterman knew the butter had been mixed with some substance, with intent fraudulently to increase its bulk. Pearks v. Ward, 71 L. J., K. B. 656; [1902] 2 K. B. 1; 87 L. T. 51; 66 J. P. 774; 20 Cox, C. C. 279; 18 T. L. R. 538-D. By s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, no person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such 1 1. OFFENCES GENERALLY. purchaser, under a penalty not exceeding £20"-Held, that, an offence within that section was committed, although the seller did not know that the article sold was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. Betts v. Armstead, 57 L. J., M. C. 100; 20 Q. B. D. 771; 58 L. T. 811; 36 W. R. 720; 16 Cox, C. C. 418; 52 J. P. 471. In a prosecution under s. 9 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for the abstraction of any part of an article of food before sale, and selling without making disclosure,' it is unnecessary to prove guilty knowledge on the part of the seller. Pain v. Boughtwood, 59 L. J., M. C. 45; 24 Q. B. D. 353; 62 L. T. 284; 38 W. R. 428; 16 Cox, C. C. 747; 54 J. P. 469. A person cannot be convicted under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 37, s. 8, for using prohibited mixtures or ingredients in the making of bread for sale, unless there is knowledge, either in himself or in the person employed by him, of the presence of the mixture or ingredient. Core v. James, 41 L. J., M. C. 19; L. R. 7 Q. B. 135; 25 L. T. 593; 20 W. R. 201. Admixture of Arsenic in Beer-Liability of Innocent Vendor.]-A person who sells beer which in fact contains such an admixture of arsenic as to be prejudicial to health is liable to conviction under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, although he does not know, and cannot reasonably be expected to know, of the presence of the arsenic in the beer. Goulder v. Rook, 70 L. J., K. B. 747; [1901] 2 K. B. 290; 84 L. T. 719; 49 W. R. 684, 701; 65 J. P. 646; 19 Cox, C. C. 725; 17 T. L. R. 503-D. False Warranty in Writing-Mens Rea.]-Under clause 3 of s. 27 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, in order to constitute the offence of giving a false warranty in writing to a purchaser in respect of an article of food or drug, a mens rea on the part of the seller at the time when the warranty was given must be proved. Derbyshire v. Houliston, 66 L. J., Q. B. 569; [1897] 1 Q. B. 772; 76 L. T. 624; 45 W. R. 527; 61 J. P. 374; 18 Cox, C. C. 609. Intent to sell in an altered State without Notice.]-In a prosecution under s. 9 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, it is sufficient to prove that an article of food has been altered by the abstraction of some part of it, and sold in its altered state without notice, and it is not necessary to prove that it was so altered by the seller with intent to sell it in its altered state without notice. Dyke v. Gower, 61 L. J., M. C. 70; [1892] 1 Q. B. 220; 65 L. T. 760; 17 Cox, C. C. 421; 56 J. P. 168. M. C. 41; [1894] 1 Q. B. 304; 10 R. 410; 70 L. T. 351; 42 W. R. 400; 17 Cox, C. C. 726; 58 J. P. 230. Powder.]-Held, not of an article food, and bread made by it not injurious to health Warren (mixed with alum). Phillips, [1880] 44 J. P. 61. V. Butter Butter Blended with Milk.]— Butter blended with milk so that it contains an excess of water does not become margarine. Therefore a vendor of such milk-blended butter cannot be convicted under s. 8 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, for selling margarine containing more than 10 per cent. of butter fat. The sale of butter blended with milk is lawful if sold as such. Bayley v. Pearks, 87 L. T. 67; 66 J. P. 790; 20 Cox, C. C. 289; 18 T. L. R. 567—D. A provision merchant selling to a purchaser, who asks for " butter," butter to which, by a process subsequent to its manufacture, milk has been added without being converted into butter, and which in consequence contains an excess of water, is liable to be convicted, under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, of selling, to the prejudice of the purchaser, an article not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser. Pearks v. Knight; Pearks v. Van Tromp, 70 L. J., K. B. 1002; [1901] 2 K. B. 825; 85 L. T. 379; 50 W. R. 104; 65 J. P. 822; 20 Cox, C. C. 46; 17 T. L. R. 771-D. Where provision merchants affixed in their shop, in a position visible to an ordinary purchaser, a notice to the effect that the butter sold at their establishment was butter blended with milk and containing 20 to 24 per cent. of moisture-Held, that a sale of such blended butter was not a sale to the prejudice of the purchaser within the meaning of s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, although the percentage of water was excessive, and the purchaser had not in fact seen the notice. Pearks v. Houghton, 71 L. J., K. B. 385; [1902] 1 K. B. 889; 86 L. T. 325; 50 W. R. 605; 66 J. P. 422; 18 T. L. R. 362-D. 66 con of Knowledge of True Nature of Article Sold.]-The respondent employed an agent to purchase on his behalf from the appellants, a grocery company, half a pound of "butter for the purpose of analysis. The agent asked for and both he and the respondent expected to get butter," but the company supplied a substance known as Pearks butter,' sisting of butter blended with milk, and consequence an excess containing in moisture. The agent and the respondent both knew that the butter supplied was moist, though they did not know that it contained such an excess of moisture as it did contain: -Held, a sale" to the prejudice of the purchaser," within the meaning of s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Pearks v. Ward, 71 L. J., K. B. 656; [1902] 2 K. B. 1: 87 L. T. 51; 66 J. P. 774; 20 Cox, C. C. 279; 18 T. L. R. 538-D. Butterine Sale of Butterine as Butter.]Labels removed from proper places owing to 1. OFFENCES GENERALLY. window being cleaned. Conviction affirmed by Recorder. Wadd v. Brayley [1887] 51 J. P. 423. Coffee Fraudulent Intention to Increase Bulk.]-The defendant was a shopkeeper, and on being asked for a pound of coffee served the purchaser out of a canister of Symington's coffee, for which 1s. 4d. was paid, and affixed a label stating that it was sold as a mixture of chicory and coffee. It contained 85 per cent. of chicory. The magistrate dismissed the information for selling to the prejudice of the purchaser, but did not find whether the mixture was made with a fraudulent intent to increase the bulk : -Held, that he was bound to find that fact, and if affirmatively, that he ought to convict, though the defendant might have sold the article as he purchased it. Horder Meddings, 44 J. P. 234. V. The respondent went into the appellant's shop and asked for half a pound of coffee, for which he was charged 9d., the price of pure coffee; when the coffee was put up in a parcel and lying on the counter after payment, the respondent said he had bought it for analysis. The appellant then pointed out a label outside the parcel with the words, This is a mixture of coffee and chicory.' On analysis the coffee was only 60 per cent.; and the justices found that the chicory was used fraudulently to increase the bulk, and convicted L. -Held, that the justices, on finding that there was fraud, were right. Liddiard v. Reece, 44 J. P. 233. O. sold French coffee, the label stating that it was mixed with chicory, and the purchaser was also told the same. The analysis shewed that there was 60 per cent. chicory and 40 per cent. coffee. The justices convicted O., holding that, as the proportion of chicory was not stated, it must have been added fraudulently to increase the bulk :-Held, the justices were wrong, and that there was no evidence to support a conviction. Otter v. Edgley, 57 J. P. 457. A. went into H.'s shop and asked for half a pound of coffee. H. said she did not keep it, whereon A. pointed to certain tins labelled " coffee and chicory." H. said she sold that as a mixture, and A. asked for half a pound of it, which H. sold. The mixture contained about 30 per cent. of coffee. H. was charged with selling coffee not of the nature, &c., of coffee :-Held, that the justices were wrong in convicting H. of selling coffee, for that she sold only a mixture as she was entitled to do, and in doing which, she committed no offence within s. 6 of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63. Higgins v. Hall, 51 J. P. 293. At the hearing of a summons against the appellant company for selling coffee not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the respondent, it was proved that the latter visited the appellants' shop, asked for half a pound of coffee and was supplied with two packets contained in wrappers with two coupons. On the front and back of the wrappers were the words Coffee Mixture," and also the words in small print, Sold as a mixture of chicory and coffee." The coupons VOL. I. given with the packets entitled the purchaser to other articles. The respondent paid 11d. for the packets, and his attention was not drawn to the labels or to the article supplied being a mixture. On analysis the mixture was found to consist of 74 per cent. of chicory and 26 per cent. of coffee. The justices found that an offence had been committed under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and also that, as in their opinion the chicory had been added fraudulently to increase the weight and bulk of the article sold, neither the label nor wrapper afforded any protection under s. 8 of the Act-Held, that there was evidence on which the justices could so find. Star Tea Co. v. Neale, 73 J. P. 511; 8 L. G. R. 5—D. Mustard.]-Where the justices found that flour was mixed with mustard to make it fit was remitted to for consumption, the case them to see if they could find that there was no such thing as pure mustard. Sandys v. Markham, [1877] 41 J. P. 52. Label.]-The label described the article as an admixture of pure mustard with farina and choice condiments :-Held (by the magistrates) that there was no prejudice to the purchaser. Summons dismissed. Horder v. Grainger, [1880] 44 J. P. 188 and cf. Goldsmith v. Maddaford, [1882] 46 J. P. 44; Attfield v. Tyler, [1893] 57 J. P. 357 (Epps' Cocoa). Standard of British Pharmacopoeia Quality.]-Upon a complaint under s. 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling tincture of opium which was not of the nature, substance, or quality," of the article demanded by the purchaser, it appeared that the drug which was sold as tincture of opium by the defendant was deficient in opium to the extent of one-third, and in alcohol to the extent of nearly one-half as compared with the standard prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia-Held, that the defendant was liable to be convicted, although the purchaser had not specifically asked for tincture of opium prepared according to the recipe in the British Pharmacopoeia.' White v. Bywater, 19 Q. B. D. 582; 36 W. R. 280; 51 J. P. 821. The Paregoric Substitute Supplied.] appellant, an inspector of weights and measures charged with the execution of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, entered the shop of the respondent, a chemist, and asked the respondent's apprentice for four ounces of paregoric. The apprentice filled, corked, and labelled a bottle and handed it to the appellant. The label contained the following printed words," Paregoric-Poison," but the word Poison had been struck out in pencil and the word Substitute" added. The appellant stated that the purchase was made for the purpose of analysis. On analysis the 8 1. OFFENCES GENERALLY. contents of the bottle were found not to contain the necessary ingredients of a paregoric made according to the formula given in the British Pharmacopoeia. At the hearing of an information against the respondent for having sold paregoric which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded, it was proved that paregoric was not sold by the respondent's apprentice because he, being a unqualified assistant, could not sell poisons without committing an offence, and that on the day following the purchase the appellant was informed of this. The justices dismissed the information on the ground that there was no sale to the prejudice of the purchaser: Held (dismissing an appeal from the justices), that in the special circumstances of the case there had been no sale to the prejudice of the purchaser. Bundy v. Lewis, 99 L. T. 833; 72 J. P. 489; 7 L. G. R. 55; 21 Cox, C. C. 744-D. Compounded Drug-British Pharmacopoeia -Standard of Quality.]-A chemist selling to a purchaser, who asks for "mercury ointment but does not state that he requires it to be made in accordance with the standard of the British Pharmacopoeia, an ointment containing only about one-fourth of the percentage of mercury contained in the mercury ointment of the British Pharmacopoeia, without informing him of the difference, is liable to be convicted under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, of selling to the prejudice of the purchaser a drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser. Dickins V. Randerson, 70 L. J., K. B. 344; [1901] 1 K. B. 437; 84 L. T. 204; 65 J. P. 262; 19 Cox, C. C. 643; 17 T. L. R. 224—D. Arsenical Soap.]-The respondent sold to the appellant, who asked for arsenical soap, Dr. Mackenzie's arsenical soap, which contained no arsenic in it:-Held, by Hawkins, J., that the soap was not a drug; by Wright, J., that the soap demanded was a compounded drug within the exception in s. 6, sub-s. 3. Houghton v. Taplin, [1897] 13 T. L. R. 386. Evidence of Commercial Standard Differing from Pharmacopoeia-Admissibility.In a prosecution under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling to the prejudice of the purchaser an article which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded, upon the ground that the article, being one mentioned in the British Pharmacopoeia, is not in accordance with the prescription in the Pharmacopoeia, evidence tendered for the defendant is admissible to shew that there is a commercial standard of the article differing from that prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia. Dickins v. Randerson (70 L. J., K. B. 344; [1901] 1 K. B. 437) explained. Boots Cash Chemists v. Cowling, 88 L. T. 539; 67 J. P. 195; 1 L. G. R. 884; 20 Cox, C. C. 420; 19 T. L. R. 370-D. Vinegar of Squills.]-The British Pharmacopoeia gives a formula for the preparation of vinegar of squills but fixes no standard as to the amounts of its ingredients which that drug in its finished state is to contain. On an information under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts for selling vinegar of squills otherwise than in accordance with the demand of the purchaser, it was proved that the drug sold contained less acetic acid than vinegar of squills freshly made in accordance with the formula of the British Pharmacopoeia would contain, but that vinegar of squills, even though properly kept, gradually undergoes a loss of acetic acid. The justices, without considering whether deficiency in acetic acid impairs the efficiency of the drug, convicted on this evidence :-Held, that there was no evidence to justify the conviction. Hudson v. Bridge, 88 L. T. 550; 67 J. P. 186; 1 L. G. R. 400; 20 Cox, C. C. 425; 19 T. L. R. 369—D. Milk Skimmed Milk.]-It was proved on an information under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, that the appellant, who was an inspector under the Act, on asking the respondent, a milk seller, for " 'milk," was supplied by the respondent with milk which had been skimmed, and which was in consequence, as compared with normal milk as it comes from the cow, deficient in butter fat to an extent of 60 per cent. :-Held, that on these facts it was not proved that any offence had been committed by the respondent against the provisions of s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Lane v. Collins, 54 L. J., M. C. 76; 14 Q. B. D. 193; 52 L. T. 257; 33 W. R. 365; 49 J. P. 89. "Skimmed " Milk Disclosure of Alteration.]-The question whether or not an alteration in the quality, substance, or nature of a food or drug has been sufficiently disclosed is a question of fact. Milk from which 97 per cent. of the fat had been abstracted was sold as skimmed milk. The magistrate held, on the evidence, that this was not a sufficient disclosure under the Act:-Held, that there was no appeal from his decision. Petchey v. Taylor, 78 L. T. 501; 62 J. P. 360; 19 Cox, C. C. 38-D. The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, s. 4, sub-s. 1, empowers the Board of Agriculture to make regulations determining what deficiency in the constituents of "genuine milk, cream, butter, or cheese," or what addition of extraneous matter "in any sample of milk (including condensed milk), cream, butter, or cheese," shall raise a presumption that the same is not genuine :-Held, that "milk" included skimmed milk, and that "genuine" meant merely "unadulterated"; and accordingly that the Board of Agriculture had power under the section to make regulations as to skimmed milk. Gordon v. Love, [1911] S. C. (J.) 75-Ct. of Just. Milk-Deficiency in Fat-No Adulteration.]-Where a purchaser demands new milk and the seller supplies him with an article which comes direct from the cow, and which has not been tampered with or adulterated in any way, but is deficient in fat in consequence of the cow having been treated in an abnormal manner, there is evidence upon which justices may find that the seller has committed the offence under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, of selling to the prejudice of the purchaser milk not of the nature, quality, and substance of the |