1024 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[June 21, 1873. 
also stated what articles it did contain. However, the 
hearing of the case had been postponed, and he would ask 
Mr. Humphries whether he wished that the arrangement 
should stand and the case be gone into next week. 
Mr. Humphries said he certainly had no desire whatever 
to be compelled to attend the court again if the bench then 
wished to dispose of the case. The , bench having con¬ 
sulted with the clerk, the Chairman said it appeared to 
the magistrates that it would be useless to go further into 
the case, as a conviction was highly improbable. The 
summons was accordingly withdrawn and the charge dis- 
missed. 
[We understand that Messrs. Dunn, Hewett, and Co., 
the manufacturers of the cocoa, for selling which Mr. 
Humphries had been summoned, were prepared to have 
offered a strenuous defence had the case proceeded, and 
that in the event of a conviction they would have appealed 
to a higher court.] 
Mr. Robert Ridges was charged with having sold two 
ounces of adulterated mustard. Inspector Bunyard stated 
that he went to the shop of the defendant, and asked the 
price of mustard, when the defendant replied that it was 
Is. 8d. and Is. per lb. Witness asked for two ounces of 
that at Is. per lb., and he was served with two ounces, for 
which he paid 2 cl. There was no label upon it. When 
he bought it he told the defendant he was going to have 
it analysed. He took it to Dr. Stevenson, who analysed 
it, and gave him a certificate, which stated that the mus¬ 
tard contained a mixture of flour and turmeric, but that 
these substances were not injurious to the health of per¬ 
sons partaking of them. [The certificate and the packet 
of mustard were here put in.] 
The defendant, in reply to the charge, said that he did 
not sell it as the best or as pure mustard. It was sold in 
the same state as that in which he received it. He did 
not sell it as unadulterated mustard. 
The Chairman said the bench acquitted him of any 
fraudulent intention, but they were of opinion that there 
had been an infringement of the Act. They advised him 
in future to label all the mustard he sold which was mixed 
■with other ingredients. The bench were not disposed to 
inflict a heavy fine, but he must pay the costs of the sum¬ 
mons and the expenses. 
It was stated that these amounted to about £1. 
At the Dorking Public Hall, Mr. Arthur John Wyld, 
grocer, of Dorking, was summoned under the Adulteration 
Act for selling two ounces of pepper which were alleged 
to be adulterated. Mr. White appeared for the defendant. 
From the evidence of a police-constable it appeared that 
on the 29th of April the officer went to the shop in private 
clothes and purchased two ounces of pepper, not saying 
for what purpose he wanted it. The constable handed it 
to Superintendent Page, who sent a portion of it to Dr. 
Stephenson, of Guy’s Hospital, for analysis. Dr. Stephen¬ 
son’s certificate was now handed in to the chairman of the 
bench, stating that the sample was adulterated by 
an admixture of refuse, or husks of linseed and rice flour, 
but that the same adulteration was not injurious to 
health. 
Mr. White, on behalf of the defendant, said although he 
had some technical objections to take, his client did not 
wish to get off by a side-wind, as he conscientiously be¬ 
lieved the pepper was not adulterated. He only kept two 
kinds of pepper, which were supplied by Messrs. Borwick, 
of London. He had taken a sample of the same pepper 
as was sold to the constable to Dr. Hassall, the eminent 
analyst, whose certificate he now produced, stating that 
the pepper was not adulterated, and he contended that 
that was an answer to the case on its merits. Indepen¬ 
dently of that, he had three points to raise. The first was 
that under the Act of 1868, 23 & 24 Viet., cap. 68, which 
is incorporated with the new Act of Parliament, the pur¬ 
chaser was bound to inform the seller of his intention to 
have it analysed, and to afford him reasonable opportunity 
of seeing the article handed over to the analyst, so as to 
guard against the article being tampered with between 
the time it was purchased and the time it was analysed. 
That was a very necessary provision, as otherwise no 
tradesman would be safe. In this case the article was 
purchased on April 29, and it was not until just a month 
afterwards that his client had any information of its having 
been analysed. His next point was that Superintendent 
Page, under the 6th section of the Act, ought to have 
purchased the article himself, and that it was a stretch of 
power for him to send a deputy in private clothes. It 
was never intended that there should be any sly or under¬ 
hand way of executing the Act, and the inspector, who 
was the person specially appointed by the Act, should 
himself go into the shop openly to make his purchase, 
just as he would go in to inspect the weights and mea¬ 
sures. Finally, he contended that there was no proof of 
guilty knowledge on the part of his client, who sold the 
pepper as he received it from the manufacturer, and cer¬ 
tainly believed it to be pure. 
The Chairman remarked that Justice Blackburn had 
decided that the guilty knowledge might be inferred. 
Mr. White said that Justice Blackburn made that re¬ 
mark only in reference to the case immediately before 
him. Whatever Justice Blackburn might have said, they 
were bound to go by the Act of Parliament. There were 
some cases where, from the low price of the article, the 
seller must know it to be adulterated ; but it was very 
different in cases of tea and pepper which were bought at 
the regular prices from respectable firms, and which the 
seller had a right to suppose were pure ; at any rate, he 
would not know to the contrary without paying <£'2 25 . to 
have every article analysed. 
The magistrates retired, and after a few minutes’ con¬ 
sultation the chairman said that the magistrates had de-. 
cided on dismissing the case, on the ground that no inti¬ 
mation had been given to the seller of the intention to 
have the article analysed, as was required by the 3rd sec¬ 
tion of the 23 & 24 Viet., which was certainly in¬ 
corporated with the new Act. The case against Mr. Wyld 
was dismissed accordingly. 
Du Corps des Pharmaciens Milit aires, son R61e dans 
les Etablissements Hospitaliers aux Armees Actives et 
pres de 1’Administration Superieure de la Guerre. Par 
le Dr. C. Rougher, Pharmacien Principal de l’Armee. 
Paris: Bailliere. 1873. 
To hear of a class of men who are “ satisfied with their 
present position,” and “ do not seek any new personal 
advantage,” is quite refreshing in the present stage of the 
struggle for existence. When, however, we find these words 
used by the spokesman of a body of pharmacists, the 
pleasantness of the surprise is increased, and only it is tem¬ 
pered by regret at the certainty that evidently he is not 
speaking on behalf of English pharmacists. In fact the 
words are used in reference to a class of men who unfor¬ 
tunately have no representatives in this country, the 
Fi’ench corps of pharmaciens militaires. At present, al¬ 
though there are certain regulations in existence requiring 
that navy dispensers shall possess the “Major” or “Minor” 
qualification of the Pharmaceutical Society, and some at¬ 
tempt has been made to induce properly qualified men to 
enter that service, there exists no similar provision as to 
the army. We believe we are right in saying that there 
is no way by which a pharmaceutist with military tastes, 
who wishes to place his special acquirements at the ser¬ 
vice of the State, may do so without entering as a private, 
in the hope that when he reaches a certain rank a vacancy 
may occur in the office of compounder of medicines, to 
which he may be appointed. But in France it is not so, 
and it is to be hoped that in Great Britain the time will 
come when the benefits of skilled dispensers, which are at 
last being gradually provided for the pauper in the work- 
