486 Kidd V. Royal Agncultural Society of England. 
the Report and answer the proceedings which, on behalf of our chent, it will 
be our duty to adopt. If, however, our request is not complied with by leturn 
of post, we shall have no alternative but at once to adopt legal proceedings 
against your Chemical Committee and other members of the Council in our 
own justification, informing them of our previous application to you. We 
cannot, however, assume for a moment that your Society will not be prepared 
to take the respionsibility of this Report, and so relieve us from causing personal 
annoyance to its members. We shall hope to hear from you, or from the 
Solicitors to the Society, by return of post. 
We are, Sir, your obedient servants, 
The Secretarjr, G..C. Roberts and J. Leak. 
Royal Agricultural Society, 
Hanover Square, London. 
March 16th, 1872. 
Gentlemen, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter in reference 
to a Quarterly Report of the Chemical Committee of the Council of this Society, 
which contained a statement respecting a sam])le of linseed-cake said to have 
been made by Messrs. Kidd, of Hull. This letter I will lay before the next 
meeting of the Council. In the meantime I beg to inform you that the Society 
is responsible for the publication of its own jjroceedings and the Reports of ite 
Committees, as furnished by the Secretary. An ofiScial copy of the Report will 
be forwarded to you in the course of a few days. 
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
H. M, Jenkins, Secretary. 
Messrs. G. C. Roberts and J. Leak.' 
13, Suffolk Street, Pall Mall East, 
London, 28th March, 1872. 
Royal Agricultural Society ats. Kidd. 
Alger ats. Kidd. 
Deak Sirs, — We have entered formal appearances to both these actions. 
The Society is actuated only by motives of public good in publishing the 
Reports of its Clicmical Committee, and holds itself responsible for the publi- 
cation in the ' Mark Lane Express ' of the Report of which your client com- 
plains. His action, therefore, against Mr. Alger, the publisher of that paper, 
is clearly unnecessary for any real good to himself, and should, we suggest, be 
at once discontinued, to prevent useless exi^ense. 
On this point also we would call your attention to an editorial note in last 
week's issue of that paper in reference to the publication of the Report in 
question. 
In publishing its Report the Society is most desirous to avoid any just ground 
of complaint, and wishing to act in all fairness towards your client and to 
prevent unnecessary litigation, wc have now on the Society's behalf to offer 
him tlie opportunity of testing the correctness of the analysis made by the 
Society's Consulting Cliemist (Dr. Voelcker) of the cake in question, from, 
further samples of it in the Society's possession, by any other gentleman ol, 
equal professional standing, and to ])ublish tlie result, if desired, in, the same 
way as Dr. Voelcker's analysis, with any further exi)lanations that may be 
necessary. Kindly let us hear from you on these points. 
Yours faithfully, 
Gauraud and Jame& 
Messrs. Collyor-Bristow, Withers, and Russell, 
4, Bedlord Row, AV.C. 
