View report page

100
but ordered the defendant to pay £3 3s. costs. The Magistrate
was satisfied with the bona fides of the defendant. The defendant
called two analysts, one of whom would not, however, swear that
it was pure cod liver oil, but the other stated that in his opinion
it was pure cod liver oil.
Mr. Young, the Analyst, was called at the request of the defendant,
and he gave evidence bearing out his certificate. The
sample had been analysed at Somerset House, and the analysts
there certified that it was not pure cod liver oil, but were unable
to say to what extent it was fish liver oil or cod liver oil.
The Magistrate was anxious to obtain further particulars, and
he suggested that the Somerset House analysts should be subpcened.
The Solicitor, acting for the Council, thought that the defendants
should subpoena them, and that the Council ought not to be saddled
with the costs of doing so, as on the certificate of the Somerset
House analysts, the Council were entitled to succeed on the
summons. The defendants, however, did not want to go to this
expense, and the Magistrate therefore decided the case with the
materials before him as above stated.

Late in the year, an Inspector of the Board of Agriculture called
at the Public Health Department with respect of the number of
samples taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. It was
reported to the Public Health Committee that the Inspector stated