396 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[May 10, 1873. 
Prosecution for the Sale of Adulterated 
Vinegar. 
At the Blackburn Borough Police Court, on Wednesday, 
April 30, Mr. John Thomas Hall, chemist and druggist, 
was summoned on three charges—firstly, for selling on the 
25th January last, to Mary McGrath, a cough mixture 
■composed of opium and adulterated with hydrochloric 
acid; secondly, for selling on the 10th February last, to 
•Superintendent Robert Eastwood, a cough mixture adul¬ 
terated with hydrochloric acid ; and thirdly, for selling to 
Superintendent Robert Eastwood, on the 10th February 
last, half a pint of vinegar, the same being adulterated 
with hydrochloric acid. 
Mr. Potts, chief constable, conducted the case for the 
prosecution; Mr. Clough appeared for the Cambrian 
Vinegar Company, of Leeds. 
The case had its origin in a prosecution, at the Liver¬ 
pool Spring Assizes, for manslaughter of a child (reported 
at p. 798), in which the grand jury failed to return a true 
bill, but called the attention of Mr. Baron Pollock to evi¬ 
dence that tended to show that the vinegar used in a cough 
mixture which w r as given to the deceased was adulterated 
with hydrochloric acid. The judge concurred in the 
remarks of the jury, and expressed a hope that they 
would lead to an investigation. Mr. Potts, the chief 
constable, stated that he had therefore caused to be 
purchased from the defendant a quantity of vinegar and 
a quantity of the cough mixture. Both were analysed, 
and both were found to contain hydrochloric acid. The 
defendant had declared that he had received the vinegar 
used in the cough mixture from the Cambrian Vinegar 
Company, Leeds, and through the chief constable of Leeds, 
before the case "was reported in the newspapers, samples 
of vinegar were obtained from that company, as for an 
intending purchaser, consisting of the highest and lowest 
standards of vinegar. These were analysed at Leeds and 
Blackburn and found to be unadulterated. Samples of 
vinegar were also obtained from other customers of the 
Company, which had been in stock prior to the death of 
the child, and found to be pure. Mr. Potts then went to 
the defendant’s shop to get a sample of the original 
vinegar with which defendant said he had prepared the 
•cough mixture. Defendant said that he had finished all 
the vinegar used in the preparation of the cough mixture. 
Ascertaining that the defendant had received six casks 
out of one of which he said he had obtained the vinegar 
used in the preparation of the cough mixture, he went 
with Superintendent Eastwood into the defendant’s cellar, 
and there saw a cask marked with the initials of the 
Company. They saw a quantity of vinegar drawn from 
that cask. It was analysed, and found to be perfectly 
free from hydrochloric acid or any deleterious ingredients. 
He could not tell whether the cask had been previously 
opened. The defendant accounted for the absence of the 
■casks that he had received from the Company by saying 
that he had sent them back. That statement was not 
true, as on the 18th January six casks were sent to him 
by the Brewery Company, and only one of these casks had 
been sent back. Mr. Potts said that the difference 
between the vinegar obtained from the Company’s cask, 
and that alleged by the defendant to have been taken out 
of the Company’s cask, and which was poisonous, could be 
•detected even in the taste. The defendant had stated 
distinctly that the vinegar he gave to Superintendent 
Eastwood first, was taken from the same cask as that 
mixed with the cough mixture was taken from. Notwith¬ 
standing the fact that defendant discovered at the inquest 
that the vinegar, which he alleged was obtained from the 
Company, was adulterated, he had since that given three 
successive orders to the Company for the same quality of 
vinegar. 
Some medical evidence was given as to the state of the 
stomach of the deceased child ; and the mother deposed 
to the purchase of the cough mixture at the defendant’s 
shop. 
Professor Railton, analytical chemist, said, on Saturday, 
the 8th of February, he received from Dr. Martland a jar 
containing the stomach and other parts of the intestines 
of a child. The stomach was inflamed. He found an 
ounce and three-quarters of liquid matter, and on ana- 
lysing the contents of the stomach he found 26 grains or 
3 1 per cent, of hydrochloric acid. He also found thirty- 
eight hundreds per cent, of morphia, equal to about four 
grains of opium, in the whole contents of the stomach. 
He also found a quantity of acetic acid, saccharine matter, 
and gum. Hydrochloric acid would inflame the stomach. 
Hie stomach would not have been found in an inflamed 
state if the tincture of opium had alone been there. The 
presence of the acid would be excessively injurious. The 
mixture ought to have been entirely free from hydro¬ 
chloric acid. 
The Mayor—-Would the hydrochloric acid be put in 
separately ?—Witness said hydrochloric acid would be put 
into the mixture in order to obtain a solution of the 
morphia of the opium, and to get the most out of the 
latter. Manufacturers of vinegar would not use hydro¬ 
chloric acid unless they 'were great rogues. 
By the Mayor A certain quantity of sulphuric acid 
was put into vinegar, but that was allowed by law. But 
no . hydrochloric acid was allowed to be put in. The latter 
acid was put in to represent acetic acid. There was 
hydrochloric acid in this case to represent 50 per cent, of 
acetic acid. 
Hie Mayor Is there not a great deal of vinegar made 
out Oi acetic acid ?—Witness — Yes ; vinegar is dilute 
acetic acid. 
Mr. Potts—But acetic acid has no relation to hydro¬ 
chloric acid ?—Witness—Not the slightest. 
Hie Mayor r l here must be no hydrochloric acid ?— 
Witness—Not the slightest. 
_ By the Mayor—There must be no hydrochloric acid in 
vinegar. 
i By Mr. Potts Every bottle of it must be free from 
txiat acid. Out of threepence worth of hydrochloric acid 
50 gallons of the stuff called vinegar could be prepared. 
No manufacturer in his senses would use that quantity. 
He received from Superintendent Eastwood on the 10th 
- ehruary, a bottle of cough mixture. He analysed a 
portion of that, and found 4'20 per cent, of hydrochloric 
acid in it. That was substantially an equal proportion to 
the liquid found in the stomach of the child, with the 
addition of a little r. On the 10th February he 
received from Superintendent Eastwood a bottle of 
vinegar, which he had carefully analysed. He found in 
the vinegar 4'6 per cent, of hydrochloric ?„cid, 94*9 per 
cent, of dilute acetic acid, and 0*5 per cent, of sulphuric 
acid. The 4*6 per cent, of hydrochloric acid ought not 
to have been there at all. He had analysed samples 
received from Leeds, from the Company’s brewery, and 
from tradesmen, and found them all free from adultera¬ 
tion., He had also analysed the sample obtained at Mr. 
Hail s, shop, and it was free from adulteration, and was 
pure vinegar. 
By Defendant Could not say what was the quality of 
the vinegar obtained from Leeds. He knew nothing about 
where the samples came from when he analysed them, or 
wEat quality they were, or what the analysis was for. He 
merely returned the analysis as he found it. 
Mr. Potts said the vinegar obtained from Leeds was of 
the highest and lowest brands. 
Superintendent Eastwood said he was present at the 
coroner s inquest on the 10th of February, and the de¬ 
fendant gave evidence. He then stated that the cough 
mixture was composed of vinegar, treacle, sugar, oxymel 
of squills, and tincture of opium flavoured with mint, and 
ihau he made it himself in quantities of two gallons at a 
time. He said he put an ounce and a half of laudanum 
to the two gallons, and that these were all the ingredients 
he put in. Subsequently witness obtained some of the 
cough mixture from the defendant, and took it to Mr. 
Railton, and also a quantity of vinegar, which Mr. Railton 
had stated contained hydrochloric acid. On the 2nd April 
