654 Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
while I make that remark, I do not shrink from my position of maintaining 
that the circular which is in my hand, with the knowledge which must have 
been in the trade, and this is issued to the trade only — it is a circular sent 
round by Messrs. Ayre, who are dealing with the trade, and who do not 
themselves ordinarily suj^ply the farmer, but supply throughout the country 
those who, like Mr. Hope of Northumberland, and Mr. Glover of Warwick, 
deal with them. This circular clearly conveys to them that there is a differ- 
ence in i^rice and quality between the various articles mentioned in it, and 
that this particular cake, here described as " A Best Linseed-cake," is a 
cake which is neither " genuine " linseed-cake, nor " pure " linseed-cake, but 
is, as you have heard to-day, in the language of Mr. Hope, a cake with a 
particular brand, the A, and a particular trade descrii)tion "Best." That 
is something which is known in the walks of commerce and in the trade .as 
;i linseed-cake, but which is distinguished from genuine and pure linseed- 
cake by the brand, and by the description " Best," as distinguished from the 
descriptions " Genuine " and " Pure." If that be so, if the circular fairly 
conveys that to those who receive it, I siibmit to you that it is not justice to 
the manufacturer to complain, as my friend Mr. Field has done, and to com- 
ment upon, and to criticise in the way he has done, the language of that 
circular. We all know that a gold chain maj' or may not have the nineteen 
or the eighteen carats of gold, it may have only half the pure metal, and the 
rest may be alloy, yet are you to .say that if that chain is sold by the retail 
dealer or jeweller, and described as a gold chain to his customers, that it is 
to be made a complaint against the manufacturer who sells it, and makes 
his profits upon it, for that which is known as a subject-matter of trade 
and commerce, dealing with those who know what it is, and have every 
opportunity of testing its puritj^ and character before they give the price 
which they pay for it.? Gentlemen, I submit here you have the testimony 
of Mr. Kidd and Mr. Ayre, and the testimony of these circulars, you have 
the testimony of Mr. Glover, and Mr. Hope, and the other witnesses, which 
is not contradicted in this case (for my learned friend has not called a single 
witness to show the contrary), that in the circles of those who trade in this 
cake throughout the country, and who are the great purchasers of it, there is 
a known article of commerce which has the name of " Triangle Best Linseed- 
cake," the price of which indicates that it is neither " Genuine " nor " Pure," 
that it is known to be more or less a mixed or compound article, which, there- 
fore, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, you must take as carrying 
with it a certain specific warning and caution to those who purchase it, that 
it is not " Pure " linseed-cake, nor " Genuine " linseed-cake, that it is a 
good sound cake, but that it is composite in its character. Then if that be 
so, I venture to say the first part of this inquiry before you, that which bears 
upon the issue, whether this was sold or not as a Best Linseed-Cake, is 
easily disposed of by the remarks in which I have summed up that part 
of the case ; because I am not going to labour before you what it appears to 
ine in this trial would be merely prolonging it, by wandering into unnecessary 
and uncalled for matters. I am here representing the manufacturer, Mr. 
Kidd, to whom it is a matter of enormoiis importance whether the issue is 
proved or not, that he turned out from his works at Hull that which was 
poisonous or deleterious in its character, that which was a dirty cake, cora- 
))Osed of the sweepings of warehouses, either wilfully or by gross negligence 
mixed uji with a lot of screenings, so as to render it deleterious to cattle, 
causing their death, or at all events spreading mischief and disease amongst 
them. 
Now let us see how the evidence stands upon that. It may easily be 
divided into two or three heads. You have the chemical evidence and ana- 
lyses, and, no doubt, so far as the history of this case in the trial goes, the 
