may purchase samples by a deputy. (Horder v. Scott (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 552.)

NOTE.-An analysis of a sample procured by an official purchaser is a condition precedent to any prosecution for adulteration, but such is not the case when the sample for analysis is purchased by a private person.

NOTE.-At the time summons is served it must be accompanied by the certificate of the analyst.

The person purchasing any article for analysis shall, after purchase is completed, forthwith notify seller or his agent his intention to have the same analysed, and shall offer to divide the article into three parts, to be then and there separated, and each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall proceed accordingly, and shall deliver one of the parts to the seller or his agent.

He shall retain one of the said parts, for future comparison, and submit the third part to the analyst.

As to the person purchasing, it is now settled law that a person who has bought in the ordinary course for consumption can institute proceedings, and it is no defence that the seller or his agent were not notified at the time of purchase that the article was procured as a sample for analysis. (Buckler v. Wilson, (1896) 1 Q. B. 83.)

What notice of analysis must be given by an official purchaser ?

There seems to have been good ground for stating that unless an official purchaser made use of certain exact words, e.g., "by the public analyst," at the time of procuring the sample, a seller could not be prosecuted with success. But the decision in Wheeker v. Webb (1887), 51 J. P. 661, has

clearly settled the law on this point, in which case Cave, J., said: "No particular form of words is required, nor even any words at all. What is necessary is that the seller must know that the samples are to be taken for the purpose of analysis, so that he may see that the samples are to be fairly taken."

As to forthwith, it has been held that two days would certainly not satisfy the section, but that a few minutes interim between purchase and notification of intention to have article analysed would be within the meaning of forthwith. (Somerset v. Miller (1890), 54 J. P. 614.)

Where purchase of sample is by an officer of the L. G. B., such sample must be divided into four parts, not three, one of which must be sent to the Board.

If analyst does not reside within two miles of the residence of the person requiring the article to be analysed, such article may be forwarded through the Post Office as a registered parcel, and the charge for the postage shall be deemed one of the charges of this Act, or of the prosecution, as the case may be.

Refusal to Sell Officer Sample for Analysis.

If any such officer, inspector, or constable, shall apply to purchase any article of food or drug exposed for sale, or on sale by retail, on any premises or in any shop or stores, and shall tender the price for the quantity which he shall require for the purpose of analysis, not being more than shall be reasonably requisite, and the person exposing the same for sale shall refuse to sell the same, such person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.

NOTE.-Tender means that actual money must be offered;

P.

F

if no money is produced, but only a proposal to buy is made, that will not constitute a legal tender.

Any officer is entitled to procure a sample for analysis from the same receptacle that he has already tasted, but that does not imply that he can demand a sale from any unbroken bulk or unopened parcel as may seem fit to him.

The production of the certificate of the analysis shall be primâ facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and shall be sufficient evidence, unless the defendant requires that the analyst shall be called as a witness, and the parts of the articles retained by the purchaser produced; and the defendant and his wife may be examined on his behalf, if he so desire.

NOTE. If certificate is produced, and the analyst is not examined, and no evidence is produced to contradict the certificate, the defendant should be convicted.

Justices may, upon the request of either party, cause food or drug to be sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who shall direct the chemical officers at Somerset House to make the analysis and give a certificate.

NOTE.-Though such certificate by the Government analysts is of great weight, their evidence is not conclusive, and may be rebutted by evidence è contra.

When Defendant should be Discharged.

If he prove that he had purchased the article as the same in nature, substance, and quality as that demanded of him, and with a written warranty to that effect, that he had no reason to believe at the time of sale that article was otherwise, and that he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it.

NOTE. He shall be liable to pay the costs incurred by prosecutor, unless he shall have given him due notice that he will rely on the above defence.

A Written Warranty.

An irrebuttable presumption arises as to a warranty that goods are of the quality described whenever goods have been sold by description.

But if contract for sale of goods is completed, and then warranty is given, such warranty is void, being deficient of any valuable consideration to support it. (Roscorla v. Thomas (1842), 3 Q. B. 234.)

Any person who shall forge, or shall utter any certificate, or any writing purporting to contain a warranty, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years with hard labour.

Every person who shall wilfully apply to an article a certificate or warranty given in relation to another article, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.

And every person wilfully giving a label falsely describing the article sold shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.

PART 2.

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879. This Act was specially passed to set at rest certain conflicting decisions in regard to the meaning and effect of sect. 6 of the preceding Act of 1875. Thus

In any prosecution 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 allege that the purchaser having bought only for analysis was not prejudiced by such sale. Neither shall it be a good defence to prove that the article in question, though defective in nature, or in substance or in quality, was not defective in all three respects.

NOTE.-The above disposes of the ruling that the three words nature, substance, and quality could not be disjoined.

Any M. O. H. or other officials before mentioned may procure, at the place of delivery, any sample of any milk in course of delivery to the purchaser or consignee in pursuance of any contract for the sale of such milk, and if he suspect same he shall submit the same to be analyzed, and penalties on conviction be enforced in like manner and in all respects as if such officer had purchased the same from the seller or consignor, under sect. 13 of the Act of 1875.

What is the Place of Delivery?

NOTE.-Milk while in transitu must not be sampled, nor subsequently to delivery, but at the place of delivery to the purchaser. But an arrangement between purchaser and seller by contract to pay carriage from one place to another does not limit the place of delivery to the starting point if the purchasers have appointed an intermediate place as a station for delivery. (Filshie v. Evington, (1892) 2 Q. B.

200.)

An officer can take a sample from any milkman who is selling from door to door as he is delivering to a customer.

A seller or consignor of milk, if he refuse to allow any officer to take the quantity which he requires for the