alum to improve the appearance, while of 600 samples of flour only 11 had been similarly tampered with; of 76 samples of wine, only 2 were reported against, and about 5 per cent. of the 999 samples of beer examined, salt being mostly the addition, and the use of noxious ingredients seeming to be nearly obsolete; of 5000 samples of milk, only one-fifth failed to reach the generally adopted standard; and there was also a great diminution in the quantity of tea imported found unfit for food. On the other hand, it appears that nearly half the samples of spirits were diluted with water, and that the sale of a compound of foreign fats in place of butter is somewhat on the increase, as also of adulterated coffee; while the adulteration of drugs prevails to a larger extent still than that of articles of food and drink. But, on the whole, according to the Local Government Board, though the growing demand for excessive cheapness (to which we may add the habit of buying on credit, by which the purchaser places himself more or less at the shopkeeper's mercy) has a tendency to produce spurious imitations, adulteration seems to be diminishing, while in character, where it exists, it is much less noxious than formerly. And the public, as Dr. Hassall observes, "can now procure bread without alum; coffee without roasted wheat, beans, or even chicory; cocoa without fecula; bottled fruits, vegetables, and pickles without copper; potted meats without bole Armenian; mustard without wheat-flour and turmeric; cayenne without red-lead; vinegar without sulphuric acid; but milk still, unfortunately, often not without water." But though, as he adds, "if Accum were living at the present time, he would find much greater difficulty than formerly in discovering 'death in the pot," we would urge that, instead of vigilance being relaxed in consequence, there are now greater reasons for its being increased. In the first place, not only has the advance of science furnished more means of adulteration, but the adulterator has now learned the limits of discovery in the present state of science; and in the next place, the increased import of foreign food creates a greater exposure to adulteration, especially as the adulterator is not so amenable to the deterrent effects of publicity in this country. And we regret to say that in America, in particular, according to official reports, it appears that matters are very unsatisfactory, for there it appears that the shopkeeping assassin still puts red-lead into red pepper and curry powder, chromate of lead into mustard, sulphuric acid (and sometimes arsenic and corrosive sublimate) into vinegar, chicory and clay into coffee, creosote, salts of copper, and alum into spirits, and sells death to those by whom he lives; while the "king of all these Borgias" has several mills at work grinding stone into powder for admixture with flour, which is also occasionally mixed with bone-dust, sand, and clay. But it is to be hoped that, as regards milk adulteration, matters are not now so bad as when, in 1874, the Commission appointed by the Boston Board of Health reported that a million VOL. XXIII. NO. CCLXXIV.-OCTOBER 1879. 2 Q and a half gallons of impure and poisonous water had been sold as milk during the year. The standard of genuineness adopted in this country is rather low, as the present state of science does not enable the analyst to pronounce beyond a certain limit whether excess of water is due to natural poverty of milk of ill-fed cows, or to the dilution of milk which was originally good. But even this standard Mr. Watson, F.C.S., in a paper read at the recent meeting of the British Association, maintains should be reconsidered, as from analysis of various samples of milk, and by a comparison of the results obtained with the circumstances existing as to the character of the food, the nature of different cows, and their conditions and health at particular periods and changes of the seasons, he had found that milk is subject to considerable variation in composition (a variation, we may add, which may also be produced by the number of milkings, as demonstrated by the recent experiments of M. Lami of Geneva); and in many instances he had found milk from well-fed healthy cows to contain as little as 10.5 per cent. of total solids, and from 8.5 to 9 per cent. of solids not fat. And, certainly, if this be correct (though disputed by Professor Wanklyn and others), one cannot avoid an impression that possibly there may have been some wrongful convictions; although many analysts may have been cautious enough, like Professor Wanklyn, while taking the mesne standard, 9.3 of solids not fat, to refrain, in stating the result, from what is practically advising a prosecution unless 10 per cent. of water was found. Nor is it impossible that, as one of the speakers maintained, legislation may actually produce adulteration, because the milkman, who before did not know the limits of science, is now aware to what extent he may safely adulterate. While the scientists are at sea," a canny milkman in such cases has more command than Canute over the watery element, and knows how far to bid it go and no farther. Indeed, chemical analysis not only seems to be rather uncertain at present, but occasionally renders rather odd results, as in an instance which came before the Guardians of Baltinglass Union, on the 2nd inst., when it appeared that, of some samples of milk submitted to Dr. Cameron, the one which he reported as the richest yielded the lowest degree of cream, whereas the one he termed rather poor gave a very good average of cream. It will be no longer possible, however, for the milkman to evade the law, at all events, by vending his commodity in the middle of the street, which was recently held not to come within section 17 of the Act of 1875; for by the Sale of Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1879 (42 and 43 Vict. c. 30), section 17, it is now enacted that "any street or open place of public resort shall be held to come within the meaning of section 17 of principal Act." Again, the conflict of authorities on the construction of section 6 of the old Act, to which we recently adverted, as to a sale to a person who required the article solely for the purpose of having it analysed, has been finally set at rest; for, by section 2 of the new Act, it is provided that, in any prosecution under the provisions of the principal Act for selling 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 purchaser, it shall be no defence to any such prosecution to allege that the purchaser having bought only for analysis was not prejudiced by such sale, etc. Moreover, an unsatisfactory state of the law, in which it was left by the decision in Webb v. Knight (2 Q. B. D. 530; 46 L. J. M. C. 264; 36 L. T. N. S. 791), has been remedied by the 6th section of the new Act, which enacts that "in determining whether an offence has been committed under section 6 of the said Act by selling to the prejudice of the purchaser spirits not adulterated otherwise than by the admixture of water, it shall be a good defence to prove that such admixture has not reduced the spirit more than twenty-five degrees under proof for brandy, whisky, or rum; or thirty-five degrees under proof for gin." Of course, the dealer may still sell spirits lowered to a greater degree than that here specified; but should he do so, it will be necessary to inform his customers that the spirits are mixed, as was done in Sandys v. Small (3 Q. B. D. 449; 47 L. J. M. C. 115; 39 L. T. N. S. 118; 42 J. P. 550). An officer, inspector, or constable may obtain a sample of milk at the place of delivery, to submit the same to an analyst. The seller or consignor, or any person or persons ntrusted by him for the time being with the charge of such milk, if he shall refuse to allow such officer, inspector, or constable to take the quantity which such officer, inspector, or constable shall require for the purpose of analysis, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10." Quarter sessions boroughs are to be exempt from contributing to the expenses of the county analyst; and provision is also made for boroughs with separate police. The last section in the new Act contains a special provision as to prosecutions under the principal Act, and, notwithstanding section 20 of the principal Act, it is now enacted that the summons to appear before the magistrate is to be served upon the person charged within a reasonable time, and, in case of a perishable article, not exceeding twenty-eight days from the purchase. The particulars of the offence and the name of the prosecutors are to be stated in the summons, and the same is not to be made returnable in less than seven days from the service on the person summoned. This is undoubtedly a useful and highly practical statute, which is calculated to interfere considerably with the shopkeeping assassin, who might be described to-day as he was 250 years ago by Bishop Earle, as one whose "conscience was a thing that would have laid upon his hand, and he was forced to put it off, and makes great use of honesty to profess upon. He never speaks so truly as when he says he would use you as his brother; for he would abuse his brother, and in his shop thinks it lawful." But it is also no less true to-day than when Horace wrote, “quid leges, sine moribus vana proficiunt;" nor should we allow ourselves to be lulled into the belief that the adulterator will be wholly reformed by any Act of Parliament however drastic. And though his case may not be quite so hopeless as the author of the "Autobiography of a Thief" would insist, we fear it is bad enough to justify the author of "The New Magdalen" in making the Rev. Julian Grey observe, “My grocer, loud in my praises in his Sunday coat, turns up his week-day sleeves and adulterates his favourite preacher's sugar as cheerfully as usual."-The Irish Law Times. Correspondence. ACCURACY ABOUT ADJUDICATIONS. SIR,-In the first volume of Mr. Mackay's treatise on the Practice of the Court of Session, at p. 207, there occurs the following passage: "There is no authority for the first part of the statement in Dove Wilson (Sheriff Court Practice, 2nd edition, p. 365) that all adjudications in use were at one time competent to the Sheriff Court, but since 1672 they have been competent only in the case of the death of the proprietor whose heir renounces the succession.' Adjudications were for the first time introduced by 1672, cap. 19, which expressly gave the jurisdiction to the Court of Session." When this passage appeared I drew Mr. Mackay's attention to it, pointing out, firstly, that the ground on which he challenged my statement was mistaken, and secondly, that for my statement itself there existed sufficient authorities. I thought my explanation would have convinced Mr. Mackay, but the second volume of his work has appeared, and though I find in it some things concerning adjudications which seem to me scarcely consistent with what he said in his first volume, I do not find that he has modified his opinion as to the statement which he quoted from me. I therefore trouble you with this letter. The ground on which Mr. Mackay challenges my statement is given when he says that "adjudications were for the first time introduced by 1672, cap. 19." This is a mistake. Reported decisions of any kind bearing date prior to 1672 are few, but the Dictionary of Decisions contains four showing that adjudications contra hereditatem jacentem, and two showing that adjudications in implement were in use before 1672 (M. 43, 44, 51, 52). The only kind of adjudication which there is any ground for saying was introduced for the first time in 1672 was the adjudication for debt, and even as to this there is much room for doubt. It is clear that in 1672 it was made imperative to use an adjudication for debt where an apprising would formerly have been used, but as the relation between adjudication and apprising was, as Sir Thomas Hope explains, simply that between ordinary action and summary diligence, it seems to me rash to conclude that adjudications for debt were then invented. The adjudication in security is the only kind of which it may be safely said that it was introduced after 1672. The next question is whether the adjudications in use prior to 1672 were competent to the Sheriff Court? The adjudications which beyond doubt were in use before that date were, as I have just pointed out, the adjudication contra hereditatem jacentem, and the adjudication in implement. My authority for saying that the former were competent to the Sheriff Court will be found in three decisions to that effect by the Court of Session, duly reported in the Dictionary (M. 46-49), and my authority for saying that the latter were competent is the opinion of Erskine to that effect, duly given, with the reasons for it, in his Institutes (2, 12, 53). If other adjudications were in use prior to 1672, I conclude that they were also competent in the Sheriff Court. If the action was competent at all in the Sheriff Court, it is exceedingly improbable that it was competent only in the complicated cases which I have mentioned, and not competent also in the other, which are comparatively simple cases. It will be noted also that when apprisings were abolished, it was considered necessary to use express language to confine to the Court of Session the jurisdiction in the adjudications which it was made imperative to use in their place. I think I have sufficiently justified my accuracy. The authorities were not quoted by me originally, because they were unnecessary for my purpose, which simply was to advise practitioners in the present state of the law not to bring adjudications in the Sheriff Court; and it occurred to me that they were already sufficiently accessible to any one desirous of studying the history of the matter. As my incidental remark has caught Mr. Mackay's critical attention, I think it right to show that it was deserving of it. The point at issue is not of great importance, but it well illustrates the unwillingness of all writers in the Court of Session either to admit that heritable jurisdiction ever belonged to any extent to the Sheriff Court, or to relate fully the way in which it was lost.-I am, etc., J. DOVE WILSON. SHERIFF CHAMBERS, ABERDEEN, 30th August 1879. Obituary. LORD GORDON OF DRUMEARN.-The hand of death has been busy among the occupants of the Judicial Bench lately. Last month |