Page images
PDF
EPUB

5. PROSECUTION.

60 L. J., M. C. 143; [1891] 2 Q.FB. 304; 65 L. T. 82; 39 W. R. 525; 17 Cox, C. C. 322; 55 J. P. 726.

Amendment of Information.]-The nonfulfilment of the requirements of s. 19 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, is not a matter capable of amendment under Jervis's Act. Batt v. Mattinson, 82 L. T. 800; 64 J. P. 615; 19 Cox, C. C. 532-D.

Section

in Act

an

Repeal of Procedure Creating Offence-Procedure.]-Where act creating an offence is kept in force, and the section providing procedure only is repealed, and other procedure is provided by the repealing Act, although an offence is committed while the repealed section is in force, if proceedings are not taken until after the repeal takes effect, they are governed by the requirements of the repealing Act. In such a case the old form of procedure is not kept alive by s. 38, sub-s. 2, of the Interpretation Act, 1889, as to offences committed under the earlier Act. Ib.

Co. v. Preston, 83 L. J., K. B. 347; [1914] 1 K. B. 270; 110 L. T. 115; 78 J. P. 72; 12 L. G. R. 382; 24 Cox, C. C. 1; 30 T. L. R. 119-D.

Served with Analyst's Certificate not Summons-Waiver.]--An objection to the jurisdiction of justices, on the ground that s. 19, sub-s. 2, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 which provides that in any prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts there must be served with the summons a copy of any analyst's certificate obtained on behalf of the prosecutor-has not been complied with, is waived by the defendant's advocate crossexamining the witnesses for the prosecution; and he cannot take the objection when he is called upon to open his defence. Ib.

66

summons to

The appellants, brewers in London, on receipt of an order from a grocer at Nuneaton, Warwickshire, sent him by carrier some vinegar labelled "Guaranteed pure malt vinegar, free from added acid, warranted unadulterated," and also at the same time an invoice by post All our vinegar containing these words: warranted unadulterated." A appear before the justices at Nuneaton on a charge of having given a false warranty to the grocer in respect of the vinegar was served on the appellants, but no copy of the analyst's certificate obtained on behalf of the prosecutor was served therewith. On the hearing of the summons the appellants' solicitor examined the witnesses for the prosecution, and at the end of the case for the prosecution objected to the jurisdiction of the justices, on the grounds that, first, the warranty was not given at Nuneaton, but in London; and secondly, that no copy of the analyst's certificate 19, had been served with the summons. Information.]-By justices overruled the objections:-Held, on a case stated by the justices, that their decision was right. Ib.

Institution of Prosecution.]-A prosecution is instituted within the period required by s. 19, sub-s. 1, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, if the information is laid and the summons issued within twenty-eight days from the purchase of the article in respect of the sale of which the prosecution is instituted; and service of the summons is not necessary within the twenty-eight days in order to comply with the requirements of the section. Beardsley v. Giddings, 73 L. J., K. B. 378; [1904] 1 K. B. 847; 90 L. T. 651; 53 W. R. 78; 68 J. P. 222; 2 L. G. R. 719; 20 Cox, C. C. 645; 20 T. L. R. 315-D.

Laying of

S.

sub-s. 1, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act,
1899, a prosecution under the Sale of Food and
Drugs Act "shall not be instituted after the
expiration of twenty-eight days from the time
of the purchase" of the article:-Held, that
"instituted" if the infor-
the prosecution was
mation was laid within the twenty-eight days,
and that it was not necessary that the summons
should be issued within that period. Brooks v.
Bagshaw, 73 L. J., K. B. 839; [1904] 2 K. B.
798; 91 L. T. 535; 53 W. R. 13; 68 J. P.
514; 2 L. G. R. 1007; 20 Cox, C. C. 727;
20 T. L. R. 655-D.

False Warranty Time within which Proceedings must be Commenced.]-Proceedings under s. 20, sub-s. 6, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, against a person for having, in respect of an article of food or drug sold by him as principal or agent, given to the purchaser a false warranty in writing, must be commenced within six months from the date when such warranty was given. Whitaker v. Pomfret, 71 L. J., K. B. 353; [1902] 1 K. B. 661; 86 L. T. 420; 50 W. R. 393; 66 J. P. 408; 20 Cox, C. C. 180; 18 T. L. R. 355-D.

Where Given-Vinegar-Jurisdiction.] -Where a false warranty in respect of food or drugs is sent by post to a purchaser or sent to him with the goods purchased, the justices of the place where the warranty is received have jurisdiction to deal with the offence. Grimble &

[ocr errors]

cross

The

of Semble, that the omission to serve a copy the analyst's certificate together with the summons could not have been cured, either by amendment or adjournment, if a preliminary objection had been taken thereto. Ib.

Issue of Dismissal of Summons Second Summons-Autrefois Acquit.]-The appellant was summoned for an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. At the hearing of the summons it appeared that the analyst's certificate had not been served on the appellant with the summons, as required by s. 19, sub-s. 2, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, and the magistrate thereupon dismissed the case. Subsequently a fresh summons was issued in respect of the same offence and based on the same facts, and on this occasion was served on the appellant with the certificate. At the hearing of this second summons the appellant contended that the matter was res judicata, and that the proceedings were therefore bad. The magistrate considered that the appellant had not been in peril on the first occasion, and that, consequently, he could not raise a good plea of autrefois acquit, and proceeded to convict. The appellant appealed:-Held, on the authority of Grimble & Co. v. Preston (83 L. J., K. B. 347; [1914] 1 K. B. 270), that the service of the

5. PROSECUTION.

certificate with the summons was not a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate to try a summons under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. The appellant, therefore, had been in peril at the hearing of the first summons and could not be put on his trial again for the same offence, and under the circumstances the magistrate was wrong in convicting him. Haynes v. Davis, 84 L. J., K. B. 441; [1915] 1 K. B. 332; 112 L. T. 417; 79 J. P. 187; 13 L. G. R. 497-D.

Per Ridley, J. A man who has been in peril and acquitted is entitled to protection from any further proceedings with reference to the same offence, whether the acquittal is by the verdict of the jury on the merits, or on some point of law. R. v. Galway (Justices) ([1906] 2 Ir. R. 499) principle applied. Ib.

Per Lush, J. (dissenting): The service of the certificate with the summons was a condition precedent to the magistrate having jurisdiction. The appellant was therefore never in peril on the first occasion. An acquittal of a charge on a purely technical ground which operates as a bar to the adjudication does not entitle a defendant to raise a successful plea of autrefois acquit. Ib.

Selling with False Warranty-Time for Laying Information.]-On August 9, 1910, the appellants, wholesale milk dealers, agreed to supply to a retail firm all the milk which the firm might require at one of their branches, and at the same time gave them a written warranty by which they warranted that all new milk which might thereafter be supplied by the appellants should be pure new milk with all its cream and unadulterated. On January 17, 1911, the purchasers received from the appel

lants a consignment of milk which was not in accordance with the warranty. On February 15, 1911, an information was laid against the appellants, charging them with having given a false warranty in respect of the milk, contrary to s. 20, sub-s. 6, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899:-Held, that the warranty was a continuing one, and therefore applied to all subsequent deliveries of milk by the appellants to the purchasers; that the six calendar months limited by s. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, for laying such information ran from the date of each delivery, and not from the date of the original warranty; and that the information laid against the appellants was therefore in time. Thomas, Lim. v. Houghton, 81 L. J., K. B. 21; [1911] 2 K. B. 959; 105 L. T. 825; 75 J. P. 523; 9 L. G. R. 1142; 22 Cox, C. C. 628-D.

same

[ocr errors]

False Warranty on Sale-Irregular Service of Summons Non-service of Analyst's Certificate Adjournment of Hearing Issue of Fresh Summons on Information-Autrefois Acquit.]-An information was preferred under s. 20, sub-s. 6, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, in respect of a false warranty, in writing, on the sale of milk. On the service of the summons, service therewith of a copy of the analyst's certificate was omitted. The justices adjourned the hearing of the summons, and a fresh summons was issued on the same information. This

summons was then duly served with the analyst's certificate. On the adjourned hearing, the justices heard the second summons first, and the defendant pleaded autrefois acquit, but the justices ruled against her, and convicted her-Held, that the justices had jurisdiction to issue the second summons during the pendency of the first, and that as the first summons had not been finally disposed of when the second summons was heard, the defendant had never been in peril on the first summons, and was therefore not entitled to plead autrefois acquit. Her appeal accordingly dismissed. Williams v. Letheren, 88 L. J., K. P. 944; [1919] 2 K. B. 262; 121 L. T. 1451; 83 J. P. 159; 17 L. G. R. 338; 63 S. J. 535; 35 T. L. R. 378; 26 Cox, C. C. 419-D.

was

Summons-Sufficiency of Particulars.]—In a summons under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the particulars are sufficient and comply with s. 10 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1879, if they state the offence to be "selling milk that was adulterated contrary to s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875." The proper course for a defendant to adopt if he considers the particulars to be insufficient, is to apply to the justices for an adjournment of the hearing; the granting of such an application is a matter for the justices' discretion. Barnes v. Rider (5 R. 42) distinguished and dissented from; R. v. Wakefield (54 J. P. 148) followed. Neal v. Devenish, 63 L. J., M. C. 78; [1894] 1 Q. B. 544; 10 R. 578; 70 L. T. 628; 58 J. P. 246.

A summons under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, merely giving a description of the offence in the terms of that section, is

sufficient; particulars of the offence charged

must also be stated in accordance with the

provisions of s. 10 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1879. Barnes v. Rider, 62 L. J., M. C. 25; 5 R. 42; 68 L. T. 447; 17 Cox, C. C. 623; 57 J. P. 473.

Where the summons did not give particulars as to how milk was adulterated:-Held, that sufficiency of the particulars. Rule calling it was for the justices to determine the on them to state a case discharged. R. v. Wakefield, [1890] 54 J. P. 148.

Amendment-Milk.]-A consignor of milk summoned under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, can be convicted of an offence under s. 3 of the Amendment Act, 1879, as the variance between the summons and the offence proved is curable under the provisions of s. 1 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848. Hielt v. Ward, 10 R. 406; 70 L. T. 374; 17 Cox, C. C. 736; 58 J. P. 461.

Time for Service of.]-An information was laid before two justices against the appellant under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 and 1879, with reference to the sale of a quantity of new milk upon September 20, and a summons returnable upon October 23 was issued. The appellant appeared and objected that the justices had no jurisdiction:-Held, that the appearance of the appellant before the justices did not give them jurisdiction, as the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1879, s. 10, required that

5. PROSECUTION.

the summons should be served within twentyeight days from the time of the purchase of the article in question, and the appellant had not appeared until more than twenty-eight days had expired since the alleged offence had been committed. Dixon v. Wells, 59 L. J., M. C. 116; 25 Q. B. D. 249; 62 L. T. 812; 38 W. R. 606; 17 Cox, C. C. 48; 54 J. P. 725.

In a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the time for the service of the summons in the case of a perishable article is only limited by s. 10 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879, to twentyeight days in cases in which there had been a purchase for test purposes from the person charged. In cases in which there has not been a purchase for test purposes from the person charged, the summons must be served within a reasonable time, in accordance with the first clause of the same section. Cook v. White, 65 L. J., M. C. 46; [1896] 1 Q. B. 284; 74 L. T. 53; 44 W. R. 409; 18 Cox, C. C. 229; 60 J. P.

330.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Return of Summons-Computation of Time.]-Section 19, sub-s. 2 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, provides that in any prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts the summons . . shall not be made returnable in less time than fourteen days from the day on which it is served" :-Held, that the period prescribed by the sub-section is a period of fourteen clear days, exclusive not only of the day on which the summons is served, but also of that on which it is returnable. McQueen v. Jackson, 72 L. J., K. B. 606; [1903] 2 K. B. 163; 88 L. T. 871; 1 L. G. R. 601; 67 J. P. 353; 20 Cox, C. C. 499-D.

Accidental Loss of Sample.]-It is a condition precedent to a conviction under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, that the prosecutor shall produce, on the motion of the accused, the sample of the article in question directed to be retained and sent, on the motion of either party, to Somerset House for analysis, and the accidental loss of the sample will not relieve the prosecutor from compliance with this condition. Hutchison v. Stevenson, 4 F. (J.) 69

-Ct. of Just.

Request of Defendant for Analysis of Third Sample.]-The "article of food or drug" which in accordance with the provisions of s. 21 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, has, on the request of either party to a prosecution, to be sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for analysis, need not necessarily be the third part or sample retained by the purchaser in accordance with s. 14 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. It is therefore not a condition precedent to the conviction of a person for a contravention of s. 6 of the Act of 1875 that there should be produced at the hearing an analysis by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of such third part or sample, although the defendant may have requested such analysis under s. 21 of the Act of 1899. Hutchinson v. Stevenson (4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (5th Ser.) J. 69) not followed. Suckling v. Parker, 75 L. J., K. B. 302; [1906] 1 K. B.

527; 94 L. T. 552; 54 W. R. 438; 70 J. P. 209; 4 L. G. R. 531; 21 Cox, C. C. 145; 22

T. L. R. 357-D.

Delivery in Several Cans-Conviction of more than One Offence.]-Samples having been taken from fourteen out of sixteen cans of milk in course of delivery in one consignment and all the samples having been found deficient in quality, the consignor was charged with and convicted of fourteen offences under s. 6 of the

Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875-Held, that there having been only one delivery, it was incompetent to charge and convict for more than one offence. Telford v. Fyfe, [1908] S. C. (J.) 83-Ct. of Just.

Sale of Milk in Highway-Name and Address of Seller.]-The respondent's servant, who was going from house to house in a village supplying milk, went into a shop carrying in his hand a three-gallon milk-can from which he supplied the shopkeeper with a pint of milk, and on coming out of the shop went to a cart standing about twenty yards off, in which the can and other similar cans were carried. The respondent's name and address were on the cart, but not on the can. An information against the respondent under s. 9 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, having been dismissed by the justices on the ground that the name and address on the cart were a sufficient compliance with the section, on an appeal from their decision by case stated:Held, that the section required the person selling the milk to have his name and address upon the cart where the milk was sold from the cart, or upon the can where the milk was sold from the can; that the name and address upon the cart were not sufficient unless the milk was sold from the cart; and that the case must go back to the justices to find whether the milk was in fact sold from the cart or from the can, and to decide in accordance with the opinion of the court. Crabtree v. Skelton, 70 L. J., K. B. 560-D.

Misdemeanour-Proceedings - Limitation of Summary Conviction-Aiding and Abetting Time.]-The appellants were charged with aiding and abetting G. in the offence, a misdemeanour, of selling an article of food, bought for test purposes, not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. By s. 19 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, any prosecution for after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the offence of so selling shall not be instituted the time of the purchase. The proceedings than twenty-eight days after the purchase:against the appellants were instituted more Held, that the appellants, as aiders and abettors in a misdemeanour, were themselves principals for the purposes of conviction, and that, consequently, they were entitled to the benefit of s. 19 of the Act of 1899, and that the pro

ceedings against them were out of time. Gould [1921] 1 K. B. 509; 124 L. T. 566; 85 J. P. 93; & Co. v. Houghton, 90 L. J., K. B. 369;

19 L. G. R. 85; 26 Cox, C. C. 693; 65 S. J. 344; 37 T. L. R. 291-D.

Conviction-Question of Fact-Right of Appeal.]-No appeal on a question of fact lies

6. DEFENCES TO PROSECUTION.

to quarter sessions from a conviction by justices under s. 1 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899. So held by Ridley, J., and Darling, J. (Bray, J., dissentiente). R. v. Otto Monsted, Ltd., 75 L. J., K. B. 629; [1906] 2 K. B. 456; 95 L. T. 526; 4 L. G. R. 942; 70 J. P. 435; 21 Cox, C. C. 289-D.

6. DEFENCES TO PROSECUTION.

Written Warranty-Nature of.]—Where a person charged with selling an adulterated article sets up the defence of a "written warranty," under s. 25 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, he substantiates that defence by proving a written statement as to the sale of the specific article that amounts to a warranty in law:-Held, the word "warrant " or warranty need not be used. Harris v. May (12 Q. B. D. 97) distinguished. Laidlaw v. Willson, 63 L. J., M. C. 35; [1894] 1 Q. B. 74; 10 R. 6; 42 W. R. 78; 48 J. P. 58.

66

[ocr errors]

The written warranty required by s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, in order to protect the seller of an article not being of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the buyer, must form an essential term of the original contract made between the seller and the person from whom he purchased the article. It is not sufficient that the invoice sent with the article describes it as pure, or genuine, or of a particular quality, or that such description appears on a label affixed to the article when the seller receives it. Iorns v. Van Tromp, 64 L. J., M. C. 171; 15 R. 392; 72 L. T. 499; 18 Cox, C. C. 132; 59 J. P. 246.

Written Contract.]-Upon the hearing of an information against the appellant, for having, contrary to the provisions of the Act, sold, on April 12, 1883, certain milk to the respondent, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by him, as it contained a percentage of water, the appellant proved that he had purchased the article in question under a written contract made with F., on March 24, 1883, whereby F. agreed to sell to the appellant eighty-six gallons of good and pure milk (each and every day) for six months, the said milk to be delivered twice daily :-Held, that this contract did not constitute a written warranty within the meaning of s. 25 in respect of the specific article sold by the appellant to the respondent on April 12; and therefore that the appellant was not entitled to be discharged from the prosecution. Harris v. May, 53 L. J., M. C. 39; 12 Q. B. D. 97; 48 J. P. 261.

B., a refreshment contractor, had a written contract to be supplied with pure milk. The milk was delivered to B. at 10.30 a.m., and the lactometer shewed standard milk. Part of it when sold at 7.30 p.m. was found to contain 35 per cent. of added water. The magistrate dismissed the summons, holding that B. had no reason to believe the milk had been tampered with:-Held, that the magistrate was wrong, and that he ought to have found whether the milk, when sold, was in the same state as when it was delivered to the seller. Jones v. Bertram, 58 J. P. 478.

See also Farmers' Dairy Co. v. Stevenson, and Hotchin v. Hindmarsh, infra.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Invoice.]-On a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. s. 63), for selling as lard a substance which was lard adulterated with upwards of 15 per cent. of water, the seller proved that he sold the substance in the same condition as it was in when he bought it, and that when he purchased it he received an invoice in which it was described as lard-Held, that the invoice was not a written warranty within s. 25, so as to discharge the seller. Rook v. Hopley, 47 L. J., M. C. 118; 3 Ex. D. 209; 38 L. T. 649; 26 W. R. 663.

Upon a sale of butter to the respondent the invoice, dated the day of the sale, contained the words "guaranteed pure," followed by the initials of the vendor, whose full name was upon the invoice. Some of this butter was subsequently sold to the appellant by a servant of the respondent in the respondent's shop, and on analysis was found to contain an admixture of 17 per cent. of foreign fat. The respondent's manager was summoned under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. At the hearing substituted for his manager's, but against the the respondent's name with his consent was consent of the prosecutor. The respondent

relied on the invoice as evidence of a written warranty within s. 25 of the same act, and the justices dismissed the information under that section:-Held, that there was evidence upon which the justices could find a written warranty, and that the substitution of the respondent for the original defendant with his consent did not necessarily invalidate the proceedings. Hawkins v. Williams, 59 J. P. 533.

See also Iorns v. Van Tromp, supra.

Written Warranty-Sufficiency.]-In order that a warranty may be relied upon as a defence under s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, such warranty must have been given to the person raising that defence from his immediate vendor, and must be given in writing. Quære, whether the benefit of a written warranty given by the farmer to the middleman can be transferred by a contract in writing between the middleman and his purchaser, so as to be a defence under s. 25. Hargreaves v. Spackman, 98 L. T. 41; 72 J. P. 52; 6 L. G. R. 145; 21 Cox, C. C. 541; 24 T. L. R. 173; 52 S. J. 132-—D.

The addition of the words "but without accepting any responsibility after delivery " do not affect a warranty so as to make it unavailable as a defence under s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Wilson v. Playle, 88 L. T. 554; 67 J. P. 263; 1 L. G. R. 870; 20 Cox, C. C. 433-D.

By an agreement made between the appellant and a dairy company, the company agreed to supply the appellant with the whole of the new milk required by him in his business as a milk seller. The agreement contained the following provisions: "The company hereby warrants each and every consignment of milk delivered under this contract to be pure, genuine new milk with all its cream according to the conditions of the Food and Drugs Act . . . The company take great precautions to obtain a supply of pure milk with all its cream and to deliver the same in that condition to the buyer.

6. DEFENCES TO PROSECUTION.

It is therefore agreed that no responsibility is taken by the company after delivery other than under the Food and Drugs Act, and that for all other purposes the buyer must satisfy himself at the time of delivery that the milk is sweet, sound, pure, and contains all its cream, and if the milk is accepted by the buyer he shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation, damages or costs upon the company afterwards in respect of any milk which shall have been accepted by him under this contract." The appellant sold certain milk in the same state as that in which he purchased it from the dairy company, and as, on analysis, it was found to be deficient in fat, proceedings were taken against him for selling to the prejudice of the purchaser milk which was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded. The appellant contended that the agreement under which he purchased the milk constituted a written warranty within s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and that he was entitled to the protection of that section. The magistrate was of opinion that the agreement was so qualified as not to amount to a written warranty within s. 25, and he accordingly convicted the appellant:-Held, that the conviction was wrong, as the agreement constituted a written warranty within s. 25. Wilson v. Playle (88 L. T. 554) followed. Plowright v. Burrell, 82 L. J., K. B. 571; [1913] 2 K. B. 108; L. T. 1006; 77 J. P. 245; 11 L. G. R.; 23 Cox, C. C. 438; 29 T. L. R. 398-D.

In proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts by an inspector against a retail milk dealer for selling milk not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded, on the ground that a certain percentage of water had been added to the milk, the dealer relied upon the warranty of his vendors, a limited company, as a defence, and claimed, under s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, to be discharged from the prosecution. The warranty relied upon consisted of the following agreement by the Company: "The said S. S. and G. Dairies Limited purchase all milk sold by them under a warranty of its purity from the farmers, and agree to put the same on rail thoroughly well cooled over a refrigerator, and guarantee it as such up to the time of delivery at the above address":-Held, that this was a warranty of the purity of the milk as delivered at the dealer's address, upon which he was entitled to rely under s. 25, and not merely a guarantee that the milk should arrive throughly well cooled over 8 refrigerator." Jackling Carter, 107 L. T. 24; 76 J. P. 292; 10 L. G. R. 632; 23 Cox, C. C. 54-D.

V.

Milk.]-To support a defence of warranty under s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, a retailer of milk must show that the producer's contract with him-"the milk to be pure new milk "-covers each consignment of milk delivered under it. Robertson v. Harris, 69 L. J., Q. B. 526; [1900] 2 Q. B. 117; 82 L. T. 536; 48 W. R. 571; 64 J. P. 565; 19 Cox, C. C. 495; 16 T. L. R. 343-D.

[blocks in formation]

the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling an article of food not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded, the defendants relied on a written warranty from their vendor. The article demanded was blackberry jelly, and there was a label on the jar in which it was sold with the words "Finest Quality Blackberry Jelly. Prepared from the choicest fruit of the season and fruit juice." The analyst certified that the sample contained at least 2 per cent. of apple pulp, and he stated in evidence that he believed that the sample consisted of two-thirds apple and onethird blackberry. Evidence was given for the defendants that the jelly was sold as it was purchased, and that they had no reason to believe it to be otherwise than as demanded. The justices, however, found that the defendants were aware that the contents of the jar were not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded, and that they had reason to believe that the article was otherwise than as demanded when they sold it :-Held, that, except for the label, there was no evidence of the defendants' knowledge of the contents of the jar, and that the label was not sufficient evidence to support the finding of the justices that the defendants had reason to believe that the article was otherwise than as demanded, and therefore that the conviction must be quashed; although had the justices found merely that they were not satified as to the defendants' belief that the article was in accordance with the warranty the conviction might have been supported. Blaydon Co-operative Society v. Young, 86 L. J., K. B. 417: 115 L. T. 827; 80 J. P. 451; 14 L. G. R. 1149; 61 S. J. 57—D.

[ocr errors]

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, does not require a specific warranty with each consignment of milk delivered under a contract; and a general warranty in writing that future deliveries of milk shall be "new unadulterated and with all its cream on affords the retail dealer the protection of s. 25 as a defence. The connection between the milk delivered under such warranty and that which may subsequently be the subject-matter of an alleged offence under the Act may be shown by evidence. Harris v. May (53 L. J., M. C. 39; 12 Q. B. D. 97) disapproved. Laidlaw v. Willson (63 L. J., M. C. 35; [1894] 1 Q. B. 74) followed. Elliot v. Pilcher, 70 L. J., K. B. 795; [1901]2 K. B. 817; 85 L. T. 50; 65 J. P. 743; 20 Cox, C. C. 18; 17 T. L. R. 579-D.

Semble, s. 25 of the Act of 1875 has no application to offences created by ss. 3, 4, and the first part of s. 9 of the Act. Ib.

The respondents by a contract in writing agreed to buy pure new milk with all its cream, each churn to bear a written warranty. To each churn was attached a label Warranted pure new milk with all its cream delivered under contract.' The company also verbally agreed to buy milk, and that a written warranty should be given with each consignment in the form of a label. To a churn delivered under that agreement was attached a label, "Warranted pure new milk with all its cream.' Prosecutions having been instituted against the company under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, notice was given on their

« EelmineJätka »