APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



517 



baker make a fortune by his busi- 

 ness, and he was a biscuit baker. 

 He admitted that under the act 

 37 Geo. 3, c. 98, the defendant 

 was liable to a fine of 10/. and 

 other punishment for mixing alum 

 with his brciid. 



GooHeve, the defendant's 



foreman, proved that the custom 

 of the trade was to mix half a 

 pound of alum with a sack of flour, 

 which made 82 quartern loaves of 

 the weight of four pounds 5|oz, 

 each. It was melted in a pan of 

 water with which the dough was 

 made, and caused the yeast to 

 work quicker and the bread to 

 look finer, and the loaves to sepa- 

 rate without robbing each other. 

 He could not account for the 

 lumps of alum in the bread. He 

 had been eleven years in the trade, 

 and this was the general usage. 

 Bread might be made without 

 alum : it was his custom, as fore- 

 man, to buy the alum at the oil- 

 shops every day as he wanted it, 

 and he brought it home concealed 

 in a paper in his pocket ; four- 

 pence halfpenny paid for alum for 

 a whole batch. For the last three 

 months he had used a patent yeast, 

 which supplied the place of alum. 

 Raspings for dogs and pigs were 

 made of the rejected bread. They 

 bad put boiled potatoes into the 

 bread for the Asylum when the 

 yeast was bad. The bread had 

 been returned ten or a dozen times 

 during the year. 



In answer to questions from 

 Lord Ellenborough, the witness 

 said he was ignorant of the com- 

 position of the patent yeast, but he 

 thought there must be something 

 like alum in it. He charged the 

 defendant with the alum, not by 

 name, but included it under the 

 word expf.nses, which compre- 



hended besides, candles, wood, 

 &c. 



Dr. Birkbeck was called to prove 

 the innoxiousness of such a quan- 

 tity of alum ; but being a quaker, 

 he could not be examined upon 

 his affirmation in a criminal case, 

 and he refused to be sworn. 



Lord Ellenborough charged the 

 jury that the defendant was deal- 

 ing with noxious ingredients, and 

 if he would do so, he must take 

 especial care that the use of those 

 ingredients was not overstepped, 

 and the health of his Majesty's 

 subjects endangered. He had no 

 ritiht to shelter himself under an 

 unknown composition ; but if it 

 proved to be injurious, he was re- 

 sponsible, the same as a medical 

 man who undertook to administer 

 drugs, without a legard to their 

 quantity and quality, or the na- 

 ture of the human stomach, of all 

 which he was bound to have a 

 knowledge. As to the master . 

 being responsible for the acts of 

 his servant, if he shut his eyes 

 against a knowledge of those acts, 

 he must take the consequences, 

 criminal as well as civil ; and one 

 who deals in articles of food is 

 bound so far to superintend his 

 trade, as to prevent mischief to 

 the public health. 



The jury found the defendant 

 guilty. 



Mortimer v. Robinson. 

 This was an action brought by 

 a captain in the army, now serving 

 under Lord Wellington, against 

 Messrs. Robinson and Lee, who 

 were, till the 1st of August, 1812, 

 partners, as attorneys, in Lincoln's- 

 Inn, where the defendant Robin- 

 son still practises alone with cre- 

 dit and reputation ; but the defen- 

 dant Lee having become insolvent; 



