May 10, 1873.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
897 
he went with Mr. Potts to the defendant’s shop, and 
asked him if he had any of the vinegar out of which the 
cough mixture had been prepared left. He said he had 
not. Witness said that he wanted a pint of vinegar, and 
accompanied the defendant down the cellar when he went 
to draw it. He saw the defendant draw the vinegar from 
a cask that was branded with the initials C.V.C. (Cam¬ 
brian Vinegar Company.) Mr. Railton had sworn that 
that vinegar was pure. Defendant said the vinegar of 
which he had made the cough mixture was not drawn 
from that particular cask, but from one of six that he had 
got from the Company since the inquest was held. De¬ 
fendant, when asked to account for the other casks, said 
he had sent them back. He at the same time showed the 
invoices, showing that the Company had sent him six 
casks on the 18th January. According to those invoices, 
defendant’s statement as to his making the cough mixture 
out of the casks sent on the 18tli of January could not be 
true. 
Mr. James Brodie said he was manager for the Cam¬ 
brian Vinegar Company, at their branch establishment, 
Leeds. He had done business with the defendant in 
. several cases. The copy (produced) was a correct copy of 
the invoice sent to the defendant on the 18th January 
last. The six casks would be sent to the defendant on 
the 18th January, the same day as the invoice. The 
Company had got one of the casks back. The others had 
not been sent back. They always acknowledged the re¬ 
ceipt of casks. The Company brewed five qualities of 
vinegar. They did not use any hydrochloric acid in the 
manufacture of their vinegar. If they did use that acid, 
he would know, as it would be his business as manager to 
direct that it should be put in. On most days he super¬ 
intended the making of the vinegar and the general work. 
They had no hydrochloric acid on the premises. They 
had never had. Richard Milford, the brewer at the 
works, would know what was put into the vinegar. There 
was no adulteration whatever in the vinegar sent to the 
defendant on the 18th of January. He was quite certain 
of that. The company had never at any time—either on 
the 18th of January or any other date—supplied to any 
one vinegar adulterated with hydrochloric acid. Defend¬ 
ant’s statement that he had made the cough mixture out 
of vinegar supplied by them had considerably damaged 
the company’s trade. 
Richard Milford said he was the brewer at the Cam¬ 
brian Company’s Vinegar Works, Water Lane, Leeds. 
It was his duty to attend to the process of making the 
vinegar. He had never at any time put hydrochloric acid 
ijito°the vinegar. They had no hydrochloric acid on the 
premises. He saw the vinegar made, and it was pure 
brewed malt vinegar, and was not at all adulterated with 
hydrochloric acid. 
By the Mayor—The vinegar was diluted, and different 
ingredients were used, such as sugar and raisins. Nothing 
that was deleterious was used. 
By Mr. Potts—Nothing that was poisonous or corrosive 
was ever used in the preparation of vinegar at the Com¬ 
pany’s works. 
The Mayor asked Mr. Railton whether in such a mix¬ 
ture as that described, any chemical action might take 
place that would produce hydrochloric acid. 
Mr. Railton—Certainly not; the chlorine is wanted. 
Mr. Clough addressed the Bench in behalf of the Cam¬ 
brian Vinegar Company, and contended that the evidence 
adduced proved that the vinegar which had been procured 
by the defendant from the Company did not contain any 
deleterious ingredients. 
The defendant did not offer any defence, and after a 
few minutes’ consultation, 
The Mayor said the Company was entirely exonerated 
from any blame in the matter. (Addressing defendant): 
We are very sorry that such a case has been brought 
against you. I was very much struck with the ignorance 
you have showy. with respect to the nature of medicines. 
You must know that it is necessary for you to understand 
what you are dealing with as medicine. My advice to 
you would be, never to make another cough mixture until 
you thoroughly understand the constituent parts of it. I 
should also recommend you to pass an examination before 
the Chemical Society. We have decided to fine you £5 
and the costs in one case, and the other cases are dis¬ 
missed. 
Mr. Potts asked for costs of three analyses, being 10s. 6c?. 
an analysis. 
The Bench granted the application. 
Mr. Hall, who had stepped from the box, got up again, 
and asked the Bench to grant him a case for a superior 
court. 
The Mayor—The best thing you can do is to let the 
matter drop. 
Mr. Hall—I am entirely innocent of it. 
The Mayor—It will be the cheapest and the best to let 
the thing drop. 
Mr. Hall then left the box .—From the Blackburn Times . 
Adulteration of Quinine with Quinidine. 
At the Liverpool Police Court, on Wednesday, April 30, 
William Henry Rowlands, chemist, 195, Vauxhall Road, 
was summoned for selling a quantity of cpiinine which 
was adulterated. The Deputy Borough Solicitor, Mr, 
Atkinson, prosecuted. 
A Corporation officer, named Robinson, said that on the 
28th March last he visited the defendant’s shop and asked 
for twenty grains of the purest quinine. The defendant 
said he did not keep any but the best quality, and gave the 
witness a packet labelled “quinine sulphate,” for which he 
paid him one shilling. The witness then told the defendant 
that he was going to take it to the public analyst, and the 
defendant said he could not get a living by selling genuine 
drugs ; and that the article he had sold was “ quinidine, ’ 
the second extract from the red Peruvian bark. 
Dr. Brown, the borough analyst, who was called, said 
that the article in question contained a considerable amount 
of an alkaloid of bark, which was not quinine at all. 
“ Quinidine ” was not injurious to health, but it would 
increase the bulk and materially decrease the value. 
The defendant pleaded that what he had sold was a 
mild tonic, and was not detrimental to health. 
Mr. Aspinall (magistrate) asked how it was that only 
one druggist had been summoned ? He thought it would 
have been better to have sent inspectors to half-a-dozen 
shops in various parts of the town, when they would 
probably have found matters much the same in each case, 
Mr. Atkinson replied that the course suggested had 
been adopted, and the defendant’s was the only case in 
which any adulteration had been detected. 
A fine of 10s. and 9s. 6c?. costs was imposed, Mr. 
Aspinall remarking that it was very gratifying to find 
that this was the only case .—Liverpool Daily Post . 
Prosecution under the Adulteration Act.— 
Important Decision. 
On Friday, May 2, at the Clerkenwell Police Court, Mr. 
William Ranee, a dairyman and cowkeeper, Islington, 
was summoned before Mr. Barker, by an inspector ap¬ 
pointed by the Vestry of St. Mary, Islington, under the 
provisions of the Act to amend the law for the prevention 
of adulteration of food and drink and of drugs, to answer 
complaints “ for that he, being a dairyman and milk sellei, 
did, on the 31st March, unlawfully sell a certain article of 
food and drink (to wit, milk), knowing the same to ha\ e 
been mixed with another substance, with intent fraudu¬ 
lently to increase its bulk, and without declaring such 
admixture to the purchaser thereof before delivering the 
same to the purchaser, contrary to the Act, etc. Mr. 
John Layton, vestry clerk, of Islington, attended for tne 
prosecution ; Mr. Ricketts defended Ranee. 
The inspector stated that he had purchased the milk at 
Mr. Ranee’s shop, and paid 3c?. for a quart. Dr. Tidy 
