ADULTERATION OF OLIVE OIL. 
277 
tration of its abuse as is furnished by the following extract from the 1 Hull 
Hews ’ of the 14th instant. The line of defence seems to have been an attempt 
to prove that the mixture of cotton-seed oil with olive oil was the rule rather 
than the exception, and we may anticipate that the formality of giving the 
former a trip to Italy will soon be dispensed with. Having within a few days 
had a sample of “olive oil” sent for analysis from the manufacturing town 
of Batley, and finding that, beyond an odour of olive oil, its physical and che¬ 
mical qualities were altogether those of cotton-seed oil, I am sure that the 
fraud is but too common. 
Yours, etc., 
R. Reynolds 
Leeds , October 19, 1865. 
The Adulteration oe Olive Oil. — Crowther v. Messrs. Tall. —Claim £100. — 
Mr. F. F. Ayre for the plaintiff, a cloth manufacturer at Pudsey; and Mr. Bruce, bar¬ 
rister-at-law (instructed by Mr. Leak) for the defendants, who are oil merchants at 
Hull.—The amount sought to be recovered by this action was £100 damages, sustained 
by reason of the defendants supplying oil which should have been olive oil, but which 
the plaintiff alleged was not. Mr. Ayre stated that in the manufacture of woollen cloth 
it was necessary to use a large quantity of oil, for the purpose of rendering the fibres 
smooth. In December, or in the early part of January, 1864, the plaintiff was in Hull, 
and accompanied a Mr. Goddard to the office of the defendants. Mr. Goddard was there 
appointed agent to the defendants for the sale of this particular class of oil. Several 
samples were produced in the office, and amongst others one called “ Olive Oil No. 3.” 
Subsequently the plaintiff again called upon Mr. Goddard with an order for a quantity of 
oil, which was afterwards supplied by the defendants. That oil proved to be perfectly 
good, and equal in quality to the sample. In consequence of its being so good, in Feb¬ 
ruary following plaintiff gave a second order for one tun of the oil. The plaintiff on 
this occasion went to the agent, and, taking hold of the sample bottle, ordered a 
tun “ of the same oil.” A day or two afterwards the oil was delivered, and it proved to 
be so bad that six packs of wool, valued at £40 each, or thereabouts, were spoiled. In 
attempting to weave the yarn it was found that the oil, instead of making the fibres 
smooth, had had the contrary effect. The actual loss sustained by the plaintiff was 
£300, but this action was brought, for the purpose of economy to both parties, for £100. 
The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr. Bruce as to the items of loss sustained through 
the badness of the oil. He said that he was unable to fulfil the terms of a contract by 
■which he was bound to deliver a large quantity of cloth by a certain date, and more¬ 
over he had had to pay a considerably-increased rate of wages in order to get the damaged 
wool worked up.—Mr. Goddard, in giving evidence for the plaintiff, stated that in con¬ 
sequence of communications from the defendants he came to Hull, and there saw Mr. 
George Tall, who said with respect to the oil complained of, “ It is no use mincing the 
matter, it was adulterated with cotton-seed oil.” Mr. Bruce submitted that at the time the 
oil was sold Mr. Goddard was not the agent of the defendants, and, further, that there was 
no proof that the oil which had caused the injury was the same as supplied by Mr. God¬ 
dard to the plaintiff.—For the defence Messrs. Frederick and George Tall were called, 
and examined at great length as to the period at which Mr. Goddard’s agency terminated. 
In answer to questions from Mr. Ayre, Mr. Frederick Tall deposed that the oil sold 
to the plaintiff as “ Olive Oil No. 3” was a compound, one of the ingredients of which was 
cotton-seed oil. They frequently shipped hundreds of tuns of cotton-seed oil to Italy, 
where, as there were no soap makers, and as olive oil was exported from thence, they 
could form their own inference for what the inferior oil was used. It was also stated 
that olive oil was commonly adulterated with cotton-seed oil.—At the close of the evi¬ 
dence his Honour intimated to the parties to the action that they had better agree 
among themselves as to the amount to be paid to the plaintiff, and on this understand¬ 
ing a conference took place between the attorneys on each side, Mr. Ayre ultimately 
announcing that an arrangement had been made, the terms of which would be definitely 
settled this day. 
Note. —It is only fair to add that the following has since appeared 
