December 28, 1372.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
517 
-and could anything- be more reasonable if contagion was 
to be found in the floating objects in a room? The 
germs of disease, or, at all events, bacteria, did not float 
in the room, and they were not destroyed by the 
quantities of the disinfectants ordinarily used. To 
destroy them larger quantities must be employed, and 
they should be, in great part, used in solution. He had 
dipped a brush in a strong solution of chloride of lime, 
and passed it over a glass on which there were bacteria, 
He then passed over this water, which had been pre¬ 
viously heated to a high degree, and he found the 
bacteria were destroyed. As to what Dr. Smith had 
said about sewers, it establishes the theory of conta¬ 
gion. There was no other theory that afforded a satis¬ 
factory solution to immunity from epidemic diseases 
in certain cases. The immunity of the persons em¬ 
ployed in cleaning the sewers merely showed that de¬ 
composing ordinary animal and vegetable matter, per se, 
would not produce zymotic disease. He knew a family 
in the country who persistently drank Water that con¬ 
tained 20 grains of organic matter per gallon; it had 
even a bad odour, and it came from a well so situated 
that the drainage from the stable-yard and out-offices 
flowed into the shaft of the well. The family, as he had 
said, drank it continuously, and yet no contagious dis¬ 
ease had ever broken out amongst them. Why ? The 
water was impure, it had a bad smell, but the germs of 
disease were not there. Time was a great factor in disin¬ 
fection. He found that the quantity of disinfectant 
matter applied in gaseous form which would not kill 
bacteria in a short time, would do so after a prolonged 
contact. They could not properly disinfect a house in 
less than twenty-four hours. No house in which a small¬ 
pox patient had died could be considered free from con¬ 
tagion until the walls were scraped and white-washed, 
and the place thoroughly swept out. 
Alleged Adllteratiox oe Butteh. 
At the Liverpool Police Court, on Wednesday, Dec. 
18th, before Mr. Raffles, Edward Kelly and Co., pro¬ 
vision dealers, Dawson Street, were summoned for selling 
“ as unadulterated an article of food, to wit, butter,” 
which was adulterated, contrary to the recent Adultera¬ 
tion of Food Act. The information was supported by 
Sir. Atkinson, deputy borough solicitor, and Mr. Segar, 
barrister (instructed by Mr. Yates), appeared for the de¬ 
fendant. 
G. II. Robinson, an inspector of nuisances, stated that 
he went to defendants’ premises on the 28th ult., and 
.asked an assistant who was behind the counter to let him 
have a pound of 7 d. butter. The assistant supplied him 
with the article, and received the money for it, after 
which witness told him that he was going to take it to 
the public analyst. lie also informed Mr. Kelly of his 
intention, telling him that he could send somebody with 
him if he liked, but he did not do so. Witness then 
took the butter to Dr. Brown, the public analyst. 
Inspector Fitzpatrick produced a certificate that he 
had received from Dr. Brown, and which referred to the 
butter bought by Robinson, at the defendants’ shop. 
The document was as follows:—“ This (the sample of 
butter) contains a quantity of stearin and palmatin; it 
is, therefore, largely adulterated by the admixture of 
fats containing these substances, the most common of 
which are lard, tallow, dripping, palm oil, and the fat 
from certain seeds. This adulteration is not necessarily 
injurious to health.” 
Dr. Brown was then called, and justified, in scientific 
terms, the conclusions at which he had arrived and 
stated in the certificate. He was of opinion that the 
fats mentioned had never passed through the udder of 
the cow or other animal, and that they were not the con¬ 
stituent parts of milk or butter. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Segar: He said he could not 
deny that there was not naturally a certain kind of pal¬ 
matin in butter, but he was quite confident that in the 
pure article there should be no stearin. 
Mr. Raffles said he did not think that he ought to be 
called upon to judge of the scientific evidence. The 
question for him to decide was, whether there was a 
foreign substance in it which was not butter. Could 
Dr. Brown say that there was ? 
Dr. Brown: Certainly. 
Mr. Segar subjected Dr. Brown to a long cross-ex¬ 
amination, and elicited from the witness that he had not 
the slightest doubt that there were other fats in the 
butter analysed than those which passed through the 
udder. There were fats apparent which were largely 
used in the adulteration of butter. 
Mr. Raffles : Does the admixture increase the bulk or 
weight of the butter ? 
Witness: It increases the bulk and weight. 
By Mr. Segar : Would not assert that there was lard 
in the butter, but there was fat from the melting of the 
flesh of animals—pigs, sheep, or cows. There was a 
substance similar to palmatin in butter. It was, how¬ 
ever, different from that which he found by his analysis. 
A scientific man could find the difference between stearin 
and palmatin in fats from butter and fats from the flesh 
of animals. 
Mr. Raffles said it was necessary for Mr. Atkinson to 
show that the seller had a knowledge that the butter 
had been adulterated with intent fraudulently to in¬ 
crease its weight or bulk. The third section of the Act 
said, “ Any person who shall sell any article of food, or 
drink, or any drug, knowing the same to have been mixed 
with any other substance, with intent fraudulently to in¬ 
crease its weight or bulk, and who shall not declare 
such admixture to any purchaser thereof, before delivering 
the same, shall be deemed to have sold an adulterated 
article under this Act.” 
Mr. Segar submitted there was no evidence at all with 
regard to the bulk or weight. 
Mr . Atkinson said he did not propose to show that. 
He had shown by the second section, under which the 
proceedings were taken, that the article sold was adulte¬ 
rated, and that therefore an offence had been committed. 
The second section provided that “any person who shall 
sell any article of food or drink with which, to the know¬ 
ledge of such person, any ingredient or material injurious 
to the health of persons eating or drinking such article 
has been mixed, and every person who shall sell as un¬ 
adulterated any article of food or drink, or any drug 
which is adulterated shall, etc., pay a penalty of £20.” 
He contended that the present information could be sus¬ 
tained, though it was not proved that the person selling 
the butter knew it to be adulterated. 
Mr. Raffles felt that before he could convict, it must 
be proved that the person selling knew of the adultera¬ 
tion. No penalty was attached to the third section. He 
was, therefore, of opinion that the third section was in¬ 
tended as an interpretation of the other sections. 
Mr. Atkinson submitted that it would be most unfor¬ 
tunate if his Worship’s ruling was a correct one, as it 
would have the effect of repealing an Act passed for the 
protection of the public. 
Mr. Raffles repeated that it must be shown that the 
seller knew of the adulteration. In the milk cases lately 
decided the adulteration was so apparent that the fact of 
adulteration must have been known to the sellers. 
Mr. Atkinson thought that the onus of proof that there 
was no adulteration should rest with the seller. When 
a person sold an article, such as butter, he ought to know 
of what it was composed. 
Mr. Segar said that the butter was Canadian butter, 
and Mr. Kelly could not therefore know what it con¬ 
tained. Moreover, they had an eminent analyst in court 
who would be able to demonstrate that the butter was 
beyond question pure. 
