640 Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
and what it is their customers are buyini;. ^Yith that limit everybody has a 
right to sell what he jileases, but the ]iiactice which the Society in this case, 
through rac and through its officers, condemn, is the practice of selling things 
which are not that which they represent themselves to be, under a name 
calculated to deceive even the most intelligent, and certainlj'' calculated to 
deceive farmers and agriculturists aud others, whose interests are involved in 
the use of this cake. Therefore do not suppose that we should be complainiujr 
for one moment if this case had been a fair and open assertion on the part of 
the crusher and breaker that they were selling a cake, 50 per cent, of which 
was an article different to linseed, or another cake in which we hear that only 
30 ] er cent, of linseed was left in it. Do not imagine that, or that the 
Society would dream of finding any fault with that practice, because every- 
body would be then on equal tenus ; and if a man gives a smaller price lor 
an article, knowing perfectly well from the description given to liim, and told 
to him, that it is not the article which it is described to be, of course he has 
only himself to blame, if for any reason his purchase is unsatisfactory. , But 
that is not the question here. My learned friend's contention is that sesame 
and bran are harmless things, and in a certain event of course, if you have 
pure sesame and nothing but bran, that may or may not be the case ; but 
here the complaint is of the introduction or admixture. It is not for me to 
say what the purpose of the introduction may be — I am not in any way 
bound to assert that or to prove it, because, recollect, the libel simply describes 
the cake as containing these admixtures ; the question for you to consider 
will be whether or not the fact is not substantially made out — the next 
question being, whether or not it was bought from Mr. Ayre as linseed-cake, 
the maker being Mr. Kidd, both of which assertions I hope to satisfy you 
have been well and effectually proved. 
Now that being the first character of the thing, let us see what it is that 
the Society complain of in this particular cake. First of all we will take Dr. 
Voelcker's Report — and let me remind you, that although Dr. "Voelcker was 
called here as a witness, now, I think two daj^s ago, we have not had any- 
body called on the part of my learned friend to contradict him — not a single 
scientific man to contradict him. We have had Mr. Kidd of course, and the 
persons employed in his mill, but although the Plaintiffs have had eight tons 
of this cake in their possession, as they say, we have had no one to deny the 
accuracy of the evidence given by Dr. Voelcker, Professor Way, Mr. Tuson, 
and Mr. Fairlej', as to the actual things which they found in this cake. 
Now what is the assertion made and proved here on the oaths of these 
gentlemen as to what they did find in the cake ? And remember that there 
has been plenty of opportunity, long opportunity of course, it being well 
known that this was going to be gone into, for contradicting their evidence 
by having an analysis of the cake, or an examination of the eake made by my 
learned friend or the scientific gentlemen who assist him in this matter. Dr. 
Voelcker made his analysis on the 2nd of March, the moment after the thing 
happened almost, and there is no concealment or doubt about it. On the 
17th of February Mr. Wells complained at once to Mr. Ayre by telegraph, 
and there was never any hesitation on his part in asserting from the beginning 
to the end of this controversy that this particular cake was the cause of the 
mischief that happened to his cattle. On the 2nd of March Dr. Voelcker, 
there being no matter whatever in litigation at this time, but acting merely 
as the analyst of the Society for the purpose of finding out what the cake 
contained, makes the examination which forms the foundation of the Rejwrt 
j)ublishcd in the ' Mark Lane Express,' and I now beg to call attention to 
that Keport. After speaking of the chemical analysis, which he truly says 
enabled him to arrive at no conclusion with reference to the poisonous quali- 
ties of the cake (you will see the reason very quickly), he says, " with regard 
