138 MEMORANDA. 
those of many of the inferior animals; for instance, the 
smaller Amebze. It is especially in such cases that the 
delicate mucilaginous membrane which encloses the cell- 
contents may be most clearly observed.” This observation is 
not accompanied by any reference to other observers, and, 
therefore, being independent, is of more value, especially 
coming, as it does, from so accurate and careful a writer. 
It agrees with the same condition which I have before pointed 
out in this Journal, as occurring in the mother-cells of the 
gemma of Volvox globator.—J. Braxton Hicks. 
The Microscope in a Police Court.—It is not often that we 
have to report the proceedings of our police courts. The 
following case, however, conveys so obvious a lesson that we 
give it for the benefit of our readers. 
Grirrirus v. Srevens.—The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical 
chemist, sued the defendant, an auctioneer in King Street, 
Covent Garden, for the sum of 17s., under the following cir- 
cumstanees. The plaintiff had attended a sale in King 
Street, in December last, and bought lot 418, described as 
“a two-inch achromatic, by Smith and Beck.” It was after- 
wards found that the glass was not one of Smith and Beck’s, 
but only a single lens, and comparatively worthless. 
Mr. A. W. Griffiths deposed that he had attended the 
defendant’s sale on the 20th of December, and had purchased 
the object-glass produced for the sum of 17s. He had since 
ascertained that the glass, although put into a genuine box of 
Smith and Beck’s, was spurious, and of little value. Had 
applied to the defendant, who referred him to a Mr. West, of the 
Strand, optician, as the person who had sent the object-glass 
for sale; but he (plaintiff) had failed to obtain any redress, 
and had therefore instituted the present proceedings. On the 
day when the summons was first made returnable, Mr. Beck, 
of the firm of Smith and Beck, had atteuded to give evidence 
but was not now present. 
Mr. J. Bland, pharmaceutical chemist, stated that he pos- 
sessed a microscope of Smith and Beck’s make, and could 
say, from his knowledge of their style of work, that the glass 
was not of their manufacture; it was only a single lens, 
whereas it should, if genuine, have been a combination of 
four or six lenses arranged in the same tube. The witness 
was about to mention something said by Mr. Beck in his 
presence, but was stopped by the learned judge, who said he 
could not receive matter of conversation as evidence. 
The defendant being called upon, stated that no application 
