76 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[July 27, 1872. 
afterwards, and hawing thrown herself on the bed, died 
in about half an hour. 
A verdict was returned that the deceased committed 
suicide while labouring under temporary insanity.— 
Liverpool Daily Courier. 
Poisoxixg by Vitriol. 
On Monday, July loth an inquest was held at Batter¬ 
sea, on the body of Henry Wiselthier, aged 3^ years, 
who died through drinking some vitriol from a ginger 
beer bottle. A verdict of accidental death was returned. 
— Wandsworth and Battersea District Times. 
Death from Drixkixg Stroxg Spirits. 
According to the account in the ‘ Preston Herald ’ of 
the inquest upon the man whose death was recently 
attributed to drinking methylated spirit, the spirit in 
question, upon examination, was found to be a very 
strong grain whiskey. The quantity drunk is believed 
to have been about a “ noggin.” A verdict was returned 
that deceased died from the effects of drinking too large 
a quantity of distilled spirit, not knowing the strength. 
“ During the following week my report was sent to 
Mr. Call, P.M., in which it was stated that 2*68 grains 
of alumina, equivalent to 23 , 6 grains of ammonia alum, 
had been found in the sample. The analysis was per¬ 
formed after the method, but slightly modified, pre¬ 
viously described by me at the District Court. 
“ I have since requested Mr. Call to be good enough 
to furnish me with a memorandum for publication of 
the amount of alum placed in the sample by him ; he, 
however, did not deem it advisable under the circum¬ 
stances to do so. 
“According to a somewhat modified process from that 
used in the case reported upon, the following results 
were obtained, viz. :—■ 
No. I. 
No. II. 
Alum iu Flom - per lb. 
. 60 
. 30 
grams 
Alum found 
55-65 
27-12 
grains.. 
The 
Adulteratiox of Bread with Alum ix 
Melbourxe. 
We have received from Mr. John Drummond Kirk¬ 
land, Lecturer on Materia Medica and Practical Che¬ 
mistry in the Melbourne University Medical School, a 
copy of the following letter addressed by him to the 
Editor of the ‘Australian Medical Journal,’ on the subject 
of the prosecutions in Melbourne for adulteration of 
bread, recently reported in this Journal (p. 396) 
“ The recent prosecution of several bakers of Mel¬ 
bourne for selling bread adulterated with alum having 
come to a close, so far as the chemistry of the matter is 
concerned, I may perhaps be allowed to make a few 
remarks upon the subject from a chemical point of view, 
in the ‘Medical Journal,’ more especially as I had not 
the opportunity of giving the whole of my evidence in 
the case. 
‘‘ It may be remembered that at the District Court, on 
the loth September, 1871, I deposed to the fact of 
having analysed a sample of flour said to contain a con¬ 
siderable proportion of alum, without finding any there¬ 
in. A process for the detection and estimation of alu¬ 
mina m bread or in flour, the best in use at the time, 
was described. At the same sitting of the Court, it was 
determined (not at my suggestion as stated in one of the 
ne ^ spapers) to make up separate samples of flour of one 
pound each, . containing respectively a different and 
Known quantity of alum. Of these samples one was 
received by myself._ During the course of the analysis 
ot the sample, certain phenomena were observed, which 
rendered it necessary to ascertain the quantitative 
accuracy oi otherwise of the method used, before pro- 
ceedmg further. The results showed that the process 
although qualitatively correct, was not so quantitatively . 
‘ Ihese investigations, and the fact that I could not 
devote the whole of my time to laboratory work, pre- 
% ented my being prepared to give evidence on the day 
r 0 ))( n * or h ear i n g'- Accordingly notice was sent to 
that effect to the sitting magistrate) Mr. Call, PAI., and 
another week stated as being required for finishin°- the 
work. ° 
Ihe trial, however, proceeded, and three gentlemen 
deposed on the 5th October, 1871, as to the amount of 
alum found by them, as follows (from the newspaper 
report), viz. :— r r 
No. I. found equal to o - 89 grains, contained 20 grns. per lb 
No. H. ■ „ 8-0 „ 1.5 1 
x°.nr. 25 0 ;; 10 ;; ;; 
“ These numbers show' but a slight loss of alumina, 
when the large proportion of organic matter with which 
the alum w r as mixed is considered, and it is remembered 
that one grain of alumina represents nearly nine of 
alum. 
“ It may be observed from the newspaper reports that 
one at least of the chemists employed calculated the 
alum from the amount of phosphate of alumina found; 
if so, the results arrived at cannot by any means be 
received as correct; from the fact that the precipitate 
obtained of so-called phosphate of alumina is an indefi¬ 
nite mixture of phosphate of alumina and alumina with 
possibly some silicate of alumina. Both Watts and 
Ure in their dictionaries refer to this. Ure says (oth 
edition): ‘ The only precipitate which can, under the 
circumstances of the experiment, simulate alumina, is 
the phosphate of that earth, which behaves with all 
re-agents as pure alumina. Such a precipitate, there¬ 
fore, if taken account of as pure alumina would alto¬ 
gether vitiate a quantitative analysis, if the amount of 
alum w r ere calculated from it; ’ et seq. Similar remarks 
are made in Watts’s ‘ Dictionary of Chemistry.’ 
“ Moreover, phosphate of alumina itself varies in 
composition, under certain conditions of precipitation, 
and to take it, or any indefinite mixture of it, with alu¬ 
mina, as a basis for calculation is quite contrary to a 
fundamental and well-known rule in analysis ; it being 
absolutely indispensable that the substance from which 
calculations are made, should be of known, definite, and 
unalterable composition, under the circumstances of its 
preparation. 
“ The following analysis will show the extreme in* 
accuracy of such data :— 
Alum in Flour As calculated from 
per lb. so-called Phos¬ 
phate of Alumina. 
No. I. 30 grains . 17-17 grains 
No. II. 60 „ . 38-17 „ 
Alum found. 
As calculated 
from so-called 
Alumina. 
40 
98-79 
86 grains. 
“ Portions of the same samples analysed by the- 
method now followed by me gave pure alumina equiva¬ 
lent respectively to 27"12 and 55-65 grains of alum to- 
the pound of flour. 
“ On the contrary, the advantage of the method used 
in the laboratory of the Medical School consists mainly 
in calculating the alum from a substance, viz., alumina, 
the chemical composition of w r hich is definite and in¬ 
variable, and the purity of wdiich, when obtained, is 
easily ascertainable. 
“ In conclusion, it may be confidently stated, that, 
where any effective quantity of alum has been used in 
the manufacture of bread it may as surely be detected 
as the poison arsenic w T hen present in the viscera, or 
disseminated through the tissues of the animal body, 
and, on the other hand, where not present, a properly* 
conducted analysis will not discover it.” 
