518 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
[December 28,1872, 
Mr. Raffles said he must hold it necessary to prove 
that the seller had a knowledge of the adulteration. As 
this had not been shown the summons would be dis¬ 
missed. 
Mr. Atkinson said that under the circumstances he 
should withdraw seven other summonses. 
Mr. Raffles, on the application of Mr. Atkinson, granted 
a case. 
Mr. Segar applied for costs, but they were refused. 
It will be seen that the defendant’s version of the 
case was not heard, in consequence of the summons 
having been dismissed from want of evidence that the 
defendant was aware of the presence of an adulterant. 
The Liverpool Courier states that it has been supplied 
with the following list of quotations as to the component 
parts of butter, by Mr. Martin Murphy, analytical 
chemist, who would have given evidence as to the purity 
of the butter had the case gone on:— 
Fownes’ ‘Handbook of Chemistry/ new edition, 1872, 
page 733, says, speaking of stearin and stearic acid, 
“It is found in the softer fats, such as butter of cows’ 
milk, etc.” Cfmelin’s ‘ Chemistry/ published by the 
Cavendish Society, vol. x., page 387, organic section, 
says, “ Summer butter contains relatively larger pro¬ 
portions of olein; winter butter of stearin.” Miller’s 
‘Elements of Chemistry/ 4th edition, 1869, vol. iii. 
page 294, says, “ Butter consists of a mixture of olein 
with several fats, amongst which palmatin is the prin¬ 
cipal solid constituent.” 
And Watts’s ‘ Dictionary of Chemistry/ vol. i. 1863, 
article “Butter,” says, “ Ordinary butter, from cows’ 
milk, is composed, according to Chevreul, of stearin, 
margarin, and olein, with small quantities of butyrin 
caproin and caprin, to which its odour is due. Accord¬ 
ing to Heintz, it contains olein, a large quantity of 
palmatin, and a small quantity of stearin, etc.” 
From these statements, he says, it would appear that 
the components of butter are also those of lards and 
tallows, but in variable proportions. He doubts if the 
learned analyst could extract stearin from seed oils. 
Alleged Adulteration of Milk. 
At Worship Street, on Monday last, Mr. Job Mans¬ 
field, a cowkeeper, of Bethnal Green, attended, in answer 
to a summons charging him, under the Act lately passed, 
with selling adulterated milk. Mr. Fenton represented 
the defendant. 
Edward Hutton, a dairyman, carrying on business in 
Mostyn Road, Old Ford, said that he had been in the 
habit of dealing with the defendant for milk, which he 
subsequently retailed to his customers. They had com¬ 
plained of the quality of the milk, and witness, in conse¬ 
quence, sent a sample, in the condition in which he re¬ 
ceived it from the defendant, to Dr. Sarvis, and another to 
Dr. Woodford, of Bethnal Green. He also saw the defen¬ 
dant upon the matter and showed him the milk, which 
he admitted to be “ not very good.” He then threatened 
to proceed against the defendant, who replied that he 
could not be fined £50, as clean water was not anything 
bad. Corroborative evidence was given. The wife and 
the son of the complainant said that on one occasion 
when his father spoke to the defendant about the milk, 
his reply was that there was nothing but clean water in 
it. 
Dr. Sarvis deposed to testing the milk brought to him, 
which he found to contain one-fifth of water. 
In defence the foreman to Mr. Mansfield was called. 
He said that on the day in question he was with the 
milk from the time it came from the barn till delivered 
to the defendant, and up to that time not a drain of water 
was put to it. His master supplied wholesale dealers, 
who, he believed, watered it. That was called “ Simp¬ 
son.” In cross-examination he said that the milk was 
delivered to Mrs. Johnson in the dairy. He could 
not, of course, say if she watered it or not. There 
were seventy-five cows on the premises and several 
pumps. This witness subsequently contradicted his- 
previous statement as to having noticed the milk on the- 
morning in question. 
James Horsley, a dairyman, said that he dealt with 
the defendant for milk, and served his customers, who-, 
so far from complaining, generally praised the milk. 
Witness “ generally” milked the cows for himself, and 
then added “Simpson” at discretion. 
Dr. William Woodford, called by direction of the 
magistrate, said that he was one of the inspectors ap¬ 
pointed by the parish of Bethnal Green under the Adul¬ 
teration Act. The milk in question as brought to him 
had only water added to it—15 to 20 per cent. The 
average specific gravity of milk was 1030. 
The magistrate said that there was not, in his opinion* 
sufficiently independent corroboration of the complain¬ 
ant’s evidence to support this case, and therefore he dis¬ 
missed the summons.— Times. 
Action against a Chemist. 
Liverpool Winter Assizes, December < 2SMh. 
(Before Mr. Justice Lush and a Special Jury.) 
POWELL V . KINGSTON. 
The plaintiff is a perfumer and hairdresser, and the- 
defendant a chemist and druggist in Bold Street, Liver¬ 
pool, and this action was brought for injuries suffered by 
the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant supplying' 
him, as was alleged, negligently, with a bottle of nitric 
instead of sulphurous acid. It appeared that in April 
last the plaintiff had been ill, and was using, by the 
orders of his medical attendant, for a relaxed throat, am 
application of sulphurous acid, which was administered 
by means of a “ spray.” He was in the habit of getting 
the acid for the purpose at the defendant’s shop, the- 
prescription having been first sent to the defendant some 
time previously, and the bottle, having the label upon it, 
containing the words “ poison” in print and “ sulphur¬ 
ous acid” in the defendant’s handwriting, having sub¬ 
sequently been refilled on several occasions. The bottle 
was a 2-oz. bottle. The plaintiff had also been in the 
habit of obtaining other substances at the defendant’s, 
shop both as medicines and for the purposes of his 
business, and, among others, nitric acid, used either as * 
an ingredient of the ladies’ hair dye called “ auricomous,” 
or for bleaching the hair before applying the dye. The 
plaintiff and his witnesses stated, however, that this 
description of acid was always obtained in a larger and 
wider bottle than a 2-oz. bottle—viz., a 6-oz. bottle, 
having the same description of label printed “poison,” 
as the other, but with “ nitric acid ” written in the. 
defendant’s handwriting instead of “ sulphurous acid.” 
The plaintiff’s case was, that on the 4th of April, a little 
girl took the smaller bottle used for the sulphurous acid, 
and having that label upon it, to the defendant’s shop, 
and asked for “ Sixpennyworth of this stuff; the name 
is on the label.” The bottle was filled by the defendant, 
himself, but with nitric, and not sulphurous, acid. 
When the nurse uncorked the bottle she was struck 
with the fumes that came from the acid, but reading 
“ sulphurous acid ” on the label, she was re-assured, 
and used it on the plaintiff’s throat. He immediately 
shut his mouth, but the acid had gone into the throat and 
also on to the chin and face. The consequence was that 
the plaintiff was very much burnt, and he bears now per¬ 
manent scars upon the mouth and chin, and suffers still 
acute pains when in a hot room or temperature. It ap¬ 
pears that he is an amateur musician, and plays upon most 
wind instruments, and these injuries have considerably 
interfered with his ability to do so. The day after the 
accident Miss Edwards, the plaintiff s assistant, went ta 
the defendant’s shop for some magnesia for her master 
