INSPECTION OF COMMERCIAL FEEDSTUFFS 5 



death. The farmer, however, derives little comfort from the knowledge that several 

 head of his finest stock would still be alive if he had taken a little more care in the 

 disposal of insecticide or paint containers. 



The Control Service occasionally receives requests for analytical help in 

 another type of poisoning. This usually involves the examination of viscera or 

 stomach contents of pets. The sample is generally submitted by someone who 

 has had trouble with his neighbors. The question asked by the Control Service 

 always is "What are you going to do with the analytical results?" 



Many people have the wrong idea about the value of such results. For example, 

 two neighbors are not on speaking terms and one has been heard to say that he in- 

 tended to "get even" with his neighbor because of some real or fancied grievance. 

 Some time later the neighbor's dog dies, and the veterinarian diagnoses the case 

 as one of poisoning. The owner usually thinks that if he can only prove the presence 

 of a poison by chemical test he would be able to haul his neighbor into court and 

 make him pay. It is not that easy as the following incident will show. 



Several months ago the S.P.C.A. agent for the Springfield area brought in a 

 sample for analysis and said he thought he would have a strong case against a par- 

 ticular person if he were able to prove the presence of a poison in the sample. The 

 facts presented by the agent seemed strong enough to warrant the analysis of the 

 sample. 



It was disclosed that a certain woman had publicly avowed her intention to do 

 something about her neighbor's cats, particularly those that chose her flower gar- 

 dens in which to do their digging. A few days later one of her neighbors saw her 

 throwing pieces of something on different areas of her lawn. When she went 

 around the house to the other half of the lawn, the neighbor walked over and picked 

 up what seemed to be a piece of fish. He placed this sample in a glass jar and asked 

 his daughter to take it to the S.P.C.A. hospital. This was done and the jar was 

 placed in a refrigerator. Several days later the sample was brought to the Control 

 Service. 



The analysis showed the presence of zinc and active phosphorus. It was 

 concluded that the sample contained zinc phosphide, a rat poison. Carrying the 

 test further, a portion of the sample was fed to a rat. The rat died. 



After the report was made, the suspected woman was summoned into court, 

 and the Control Service chemist appeared as a witness. After hearing the testimony 

 the judge rendered a "not guilty" verdict. The judge made it clear that there 

 was no doubt in his mind about the presence of the poison in the fish and that it was 

 present in lethal quantity. He reached the "not guilty" decision because: 



1. The sample was brought to the S.P.C.A. hospital in an unsealed container 

 and was handled by several people before reaching the Control Service. 



2. The refrigerator in which the sample was kept for several days was access- 

 ible to several people. There was the possibility of contamination of the 

 sample after it had been picked up from the lawn. In other words, the 

 prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that the material the woman 

 allegedly placed on the lawn was the same material as that analyzed by 

 the Control Service. 



3. The woman involved had a daughter about three or four years old. The 

 judge stated he could not believe any woman would risk poisoning her 

 child just to get rid of a few cats. 



