150 
Contemporaru  Agricultural  Law. 
others,  but  only  as  an  index  of  the  height  of  the  tnilk  in  the 
churns.  There  was  also  evidence  that  a churn  accurately 
marked  as  a measure  in  the  first  instance,  would,  owing  to 
usage  to  which  it  would  be  subjected  in  transit,  at  once  cease 
to  be  reliable.  The  churn  in  question  was  examined  while  on 
its  way  to  the  farmer  empty,  and  it  was  proved  that  the  marks 
were  inaccurate  in  favour  of  the  company  to  the  extent  of  2^ 
pints  in  17  gallons.  In  a case  stated  by  the  Justices,  the  Cmirt 
of  King’s  Bench  held  that  there  was  evidence  on  which  the 
Justices  were  justified  in  concluding  that  the  churn  was  not 
used  by  the  company  as  a measure,  but  only  as  a vessel  for 
conveyance  of  milk,  and  that  they  wtre  therefore  right  in 
dismissing  the  information.  In  Lewis  v.  Weatheritt  (7  L.G.R., 
502  ; 100  L.T.  367),  Lewis  was  prosecuted  for  selling  adulter- 
ated milk  which  was  found  on  analysis  to  have  had  abstracted 
from  it  14  per  cent,  of  milk  fat,  and  set  up  the  defence, 
under  Section  25  of  the  Food  and  Drugs  Act,  1875,  that  he 
had  purchased  the  article  in  question  as  the  same  in  nature, 
substance,  and  quality  as  that  demanded  of  him  by  the 
prosecutor  and  with  a written  warranty  to  that  effect,  and 
that  he  had  no  reason  to  believe  at'  the  time  he  sold  it 
that  the  article  was  otherwise.  He  proved  that  the  milk 
had  been  supplied  by  Messrs.  C , who  had  originally 
supplied  him  with  milk  -under  a written  contract  for  the 
supply  of  “ warranted  pure  new  milk,”  and  continued  to 
supply  him  under  a verbal  arrangement  under  which  nothing 
was  said  as  to  warranty  of  the  milk,  but  the  milk  had  been  and 
was  always  supplied  in  churns,  each  bearing  a label  with  the 
words  “Pure  new  milk.”  It  was  held  that  the  label  con- 
stituted a warranty  within  the  section  with  which  the  milk 
was  bought  by  Lewis,  and  that  the  other  conditions  of  the 
section  being  fulfilled  this  defence  was  good. 
6.  Fertilisers  and  Feeding  Stuffs.  Needham  & Co.  v. 
Worcestershire  County  Council  (7  L.G.R.,  595  ; 100  L.T.,  901), 
was  a decision  on  a case  stated  by  Justices  on  a prosecution 
under  the  Fertilisers  and  Feeding  Stuffs  Act,  1906,  which  by 
Section  1 (ii.)  requires  a vendor  selling  for  use  as  food  for  cattle 
or  poultry,  any  article  artificially  prepared,  to  give  the  purchaser 
an  invoice  stating  the  “ percentages  (if  any)  of  oil  and  albumi- 
noids in  the  article.”  The  vendor  sold  sharps  with  an  invoice 
stating  that  they  contained  1 per  cent,  oil  and  1 per  cent, 
albuminoids.  This  statement  was  erroneous,  the  percentages 
being  in  fact  far  higher,  viz.,  3‘89  per  cent,  and  15'75  per  cent. 
The  Court  held  that  the  vendor  had  not  committed  an  offence 
under  Section  6 (i.)  (a)  of  the  Act,  \vhich  makes  it  penal  to  fail 
without  reasonable  excuse  to  give  the  invoice  required  by  the 
Act,  as  an  invoice  had  in  fact  been  delivered.  The  offence,  if 
