CONVICTION UNDER ADULTERATION OF SEEDS ACT. 531 



no purchaser could exjiect it. In shape the two seeds are very distin- 

 guishable, as the sainfoin is oval and the burnet has four angles ; and 

 while the former costs 2s. 2\d. a lb., the latter costs only Is. The 

 seedsmen's theories were very variouSo One had seen more than one 

 part in five burnet ; another thought a fourth or a fifth a fair sample, but 

 had never seen less than a fourth, and did not expect, on an average, to 

 get less than a sixth in it ; while some said an eighth or a tenth. A 

 great Strand dealer " would not give a fourth burnet if he knew it. I 

 should not have done you justice if I did." In fact, he went so far as 

 to say he would not sell it if it was in that state, but would clean it. 

 Another eminent dealer said tliat he might send three or four per cent, 

 out in his samples, but certainly not more than five ; and has for twenty 

 years past only recommended milled seed, i.e., set loose from the 

 shell. He added, there " has not been much more burnet of late years, 

 but there has been much more noise made about it. If I w'as asked 

 for ^;?/re sainfoin, I w'ould not sell it all ; if I was asked for the best, 

 I'd send the best I had." He, however, thus quahfied the last remark 

 on cross-examination : "I should not do you justice if you paid me the 

 best price and I sent you one-fourth burnet." The plaintiff as it hap- 

 pened, had paid the top price, 52s., in 1858. and hence this witness 

 virtually settled the question against the defendant who called him. 

 Mr. Justice Keating asked the jury to consider was it such seed as 

 would answer to the agreement between the parties, or was it such as 

 might be reasonably sold for sainfoin seed. The jury, after a very short 

 consultation, found for the plaintiff for the £41 6s. Df?. claimed. On the 

 count charging fraud there was a verdict for the defendant, as there was 

 not the smallest ground for attributing to him anything of the kind. 

 The seed was proved to have come to him direct irom Mr. Forshaw, a 

 very aged and infirm farmer in the neighbourhood (whose health alone 

 prevented him from travelling up to speak to the fact), and had been 

 passed on at once to the plaintiff. 



Conviction vnder the Adulteration of Seeds Act, 18G9. — At the Lord 

 Mayor's Court on Nov. 26, 1877, one T. S. was charged with having 

 sold killed seeds with intent to defraud. By this Act, killing or dyeing 

 seeds, and the sale of such, is prohibited. The custom appears to have 

 been to buy charlock-seed, and to kill it by artificial means, to prevent 

 it from growdng, as thereby the fraud would be discovered. This dried 

 or killed seed is then mixed with turnip or other similar seeds, and the 

 whole is sold as good seed. The value of turnip-seed is about 80s. a 

 bushel ; that of charlock-seed 3s. &d. In this case the defendant was 

 charged with killing and afterwards selling 28 bushels of killed charlock- 

 seed ; he was found guilty, and fined £5 for each offence. 



M 51 2 



