ILLICIT SALE OF METHYLATED SPIRIT. 41 
naphtha to spirits of Avine. The effect of the oil of peppermint AA^as that to a certain 
extent it disguised the flavour of the naphtha. 
Cross-examined: When the gum shellac Avas mixed with the methylated spirit in the 
carboy, the gum shellac would not deposit itself at the bottom of the carboy if the spirit 
Avas strong. 
The witness, in reply to Mr. Dwelly, said that any chemist might knoAV whether the 
spirits contained gum or not by the “ water” test. 
Mr. Evans, recalled, stated that he had called upon Mr. Sharland for an explanation 
of his selling the spirits without a licence. Mr. Sharland said he had not been in the 
habit of selling it, and did not know that it Avas required to have a licence. 
Mr. Sharland: No, I did not say that; I said I sold it as I received it. 
Mr. Edlin submitted that Mr. Dwelly should elect which of the tAVo counts he intended 
to rely upon. 
The question was discussed at some length, after Avhich the Bench expressed an opi¬ 
nion that the second count could not be sustained. 
Mr. Edlin then addressed the Bench on the first count. He argued that the liquid 
sold by his client was not methylated spirit, and that, therefore, he did not require a 
licence. He illustrated his argument by instancing the case of a pastrycook, who, 
although he mixed brandy Avith his mince-pies, was not required to take out a spirit 
licence, and he was not charged Avith selling brandy without a licence. According to 
Mr. Dwelly’s OAAm shoAving, Avhat the defendant sold was not methylated spirit, but 
methylated spirit mixed with something else, which prevented it from being methylated 
spirit. 
Mr. Castle reminded the learned counsel that if a person put sugar and water into 
brandy, and sold it, he still sold brandy. 
Mr, Edlin said that, in dealing Avith drugs, a very small quantity of one sort materially 
altered the effect of another. 
The Bench thought that the penalty had been incurred, but mitigated it to £12. IO 5 ., 
the smallest amount, and would strongly recommend the Board of Inland Keveuue to 
remit the whole. 
Mr, Henry W. Sanders, of Southwell Street, was next charged with the tAvo offences. 
Mr. Edlin said he had conferred with Mr, Dwelly, and the result was that the second 
count Avas withdrawn. The defendant, therefore, would Avithdraw his plea of “Not 
guilty,” and throAV himself upon the consideration of the Bench. The defendant Avas in 
entire ignorance that he was subjecting himself to a penalty. 
The same judgment Avas giv-en as in the last case. 
Mr. Hartland Avas next charged. 
Taylor purchased the spirit on the 8th of January. Mr. Harkness analysed it, and 
found it to be 59 over proof. There Avere about 40 grains of gum to the gallon. 
The same judgment as in the former cases. 
Mr. E. VV. Giles, of Clifton, Avas also charged, and he conducted his own defence. 
Taylor said, that on the 14th of February he went to the defendant’s shop and asked 
for a half-pint of methylated spirit flavoured Avith oil of peppermint. 
The Avituess, in reply to Mr. Giles, stated that the bottle Avas labelled, “ Finish half¬ 
pint, oil of peppermint half-drachm.” 
Mr. Harkness said he found the methylated spirit GIT over-proof, and there was no 
gum in it. It Avas methylated spirit rather purer than any of the other samples they had 
had to-day, but it Avas flavoured with oil of peppermint. 
The witness Avas severely cross-examined by Mr. Giles on chemical science. 
Mr. Giles was prepared to prove by evidence that the methylated spirit which he was 
charged Avith selling Avas purchased as “methylated finish,” but assuming that it was 
methylated spirit, he contended that he Avas justified in selling a mixture of it with oil 
of peppermint. He quoted authorities to show that he might use methylated spirits for 
making tinctures, medicated spirits, etc., and sell them, except as ordinary bev’erages. 
Mr. Castle said that Mr. Giles had argued the case ingeniously, but there Avas fhe Act 
of Parliament, Avhich prevented chemists selling the spirits Avithout a licence, 
Mr, Giles further argued the case, and said that he had conscientiously endeavoured to 
keep within the law. These goods he had obtained from respectable sources. They 
were ordered by him as “methylated finish ;” they were invoiced as such, and they Avere 
sold as such. 
