546' FOODS AND FOOD ADULTERANTS. 



fined only to the American market, but the English refiners, he believed, used some 

 cottonseed oil. Refined lard, whether American or English, was never pure hog's 

 fat, and everybody knew it. 



Mr. RAFFLES. Dr. Campbell Brown tells me this is adulterated, and that is quite 

 sufficient for me. He will take the case elsewhere, I suppose. 



Mr. PICKFORD. It is very likely, but I can't say anything one way or the other. 



Mr. RAFFLES. It is a very serious question, and one which ought to be dealt with 

 seriously. I shall inflict a fine of 5 and costs. 



Messrs. Felling, Stanley & Co., Victoria street, were summoned, and Mr. Mulhol- 

 laud appeared for the defense. 



Mr. RAFFLES. What is the difference between this case and the last ? 



Mr. MARKS. An important one, in one respect, inasmuch as the lard is the same 

 manufacture, but is from the other great refiner's. This also is called refined lard, 

 but whether the defense means to rely upon that or not I don't know. 



Inspector Baker gave evidence of the purchase of the lard from the defendants, 

 and stated that when he offered to leave a sample with them they declined to receive 

 it. He then took the lard to Dr. Campbell Brown. 



Dr. Campbell Brown said he analyzed the lard in question and found a very large 

 quantity of cottonseed oil and fat extracted from beef or mutton. He estimated 

 the total quantity, approximately, at 40 per cent. The case was not so bad as the 

 last. 



Mr. Mulholland said that the witness had analyzed two samples of lard of the 

 same brand, and had given different, figures. He therefore applied for the case to be 

 adjourned for tho lard to be sent to Somerset House for analysis. 



Mr. Raffles said he should decide the case himself. 



In cross-examination Dr. Campbell Brown said he believed that of late years the 

 oil formerly taken out of hog's fat to make it harder and more fit for carriage was not 

 .now salable because of the introduction of mineral oils for lubrication. 



Mr. MULHOLLAND. And therefore it becomes commercially more important to put 

 hardening stuff into the lard than to take out the oil ? 



The WITNESS. It becomes important to tho manufacturers, but it is not right. 



Mr. MULHOLLAXD. You are not the analyst of right and wrong, but only of fat 

 and stearine. [Laughter.] 



Mr. Mnlhollaud submitted that the case came within the first subsection of the 

 act, namely, that these substances were not introduced for any fraudulent purpose, 

 but for the purpose of hardening the lard and making it merchantable. 



Mr. RAFFLES. It can not be for the purpose of bringing it over. I am against you 

 there. 



Mr. Mulholland said he also took the same point as Mr. Pickford, and as his wor- 

 ship was against them there he supposed he would grant them a case on that as well 

 as on other points if necessary. 



Mr. RAFFLES. I will give you any means you may require for testing my decision. 

 It is very desirable this matter should be settled. I shall inflict the same penalty of 

 Z and costs. 



Messrs. J. & T. Edwards, provision dealers, Whitechapel, were summoned for a 

 similar offense. 



Mr. Edwards, a member of the firm, appeared and stated that he bought the lard 

 as pure lard. 



Mr. MARKS. If you did I should sue the manufacturers for the amount of the fine 

 and costs. 



The invoice for the lard was handed to his worship, who, however, eaid it was no 

 warranty of purity. 



Mr. Edwards said he bought the lard as pure, and consequently he thought the 

 fine ought to be less than in the other cases. 



Mr. Raffles aaid he should inflict the same fine, 5 and costs. 



