Kidd V. Royal Ayricultural Society of Enyland. 637 
Mr. Seymour: I bcc; your jiardon. 
Mr. Justice Black burn : 1 thought the sample that Mr. Knowles sent was 
of a diflVrcnt cake. 
Mr. Seymouu : Totally. 
Mr. Justice Blackbuun: I thought the sample seut by Mr. Knowles was 
this : that Mr. Kidd gave Knowles a sample, which Knowles sent to Dr. 
Voelcher, and got an analysis of it. My iuj^oression is that that sample was 
" Diamond K." 
Mr. Seymour : It was 80 per cent, of linseed and 20 per cent, of sesam^. 
Mr. Justice Blackburn : A separate cake altogether. 
Mr. Field : Then it was my mistake ; I understood it was a portion of 
the cake in question. At all events, Gentlemen, let that be as it may, the 
observation still remains, that the Plaintiff has had actually 8 tons in his 
possession, and has given it away to difl'erent people to try experiments with 
ihcir cows. Therelbrc, what becomes of the complaint and the grievance 
that is made by my learned friend ? I5esides that, I shall not weary yon by 
reading letters, but 1 shall show you that on two occasions the Plaintiff's 
advisers made the fairest ofl'cr which could be made under circumstances of 
this sort, which is, " We will produce the cake to an independent chemist, 
who shall make an independent analysis of it." There are two letters which 
1 will read to you, because it is desirable, before coming to the facts, to clear 
away these matters of fringe and prejudice. " We have entered formal 
appearance to both actions [that is the 'Mark Lane Express' and the Eoyal 
Agricultural Society]. The Society is actuated only by motives of public 
good in publishing the Reports of its Chemical Committee, and holds itself re- 
.sponsible for the publication in the ' Mark Lane Express' of the Report of 
which your client complains. 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 expense. 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, we have now on the Society's behalf to offer 
him the opportunity of testing the carrectness of the analysis made by the 
Society's Consulting Chemist (Dr. Voelcker) of the cake in question, from 
further samples of it in the Society's jiossession, by any other gentleman of 
equal professional standing, and to publish the result, if desired, in the same 
way as Dr. Voclcker's analysis, with any further ex|)lanations tliat may be 
necessary." Now, Gentlemen, I will ask you whether, under any circum- 
stances, there could be a fairer ofl'er than that made as to what was to be 
done. On matters of science, unfortunately, generally we have chemists 
and surgeons on the one side and on the otlier contradicting each other, 
or differing from each other as to the results of analyses, or as to the effects 
of any given cause. But here, fortunately, gentlemen, we are spared that, 
because Dr. Voelcker, Mr. \Vay, Professor Tuson, and Mr. Fairlcy have 
not been contradicted by anybody who has been called upon the otlicr 
side. The gentlemen who wrote that letter are well aware of the scandal 
which sometimes, I am sorry to say, exists in courts of justice by reason of 
the differences of opinion between scientific pcojile, and offered at once to 
give the Plaintiff an oi)portunity of testing the correctness of the analysis 
made by the chemist employed by the Society from samples out of their 
possession, by any other gentleman of equal professional staiiding, and to 
publish the result, if desired, in the same way as Dr. Voclcker's analysis was 
published, with any other explanation that might be necessary. And, (^entle- 
men, I do ask you, u^ou what fair principle could that ofier be reluscd? Of 
