View report page

239
[1904
The solicitor, after consultation with the Council's Medical Officer of Health,
decided to allow the defendants to make their own choice, and their legal
advisers then selected the case of Ward v. Hillyer. Much highly technical
evidence was produced on each side, and the case was fought out for six days
before Mr. E. Snow Fordham, the magistrate sitting at North London Police
Court, who on May 30th, gave his considered and written judgment in favour
of the prosecution, inflicting a penalty of five guineas, and allowing £50 costs.
Fines and costs amounting altogether to £134 7s. 6d. were received.
His decision is of such importance, and has since been so widely referred
to in other courts as a guide, although only the decision in an inferior court,
that it is now given in full.
JUDGMENT OF E. SNOW FORDHAM, Esquire.
In this case I have to give judgment. This is a summons under Section 6 of the Food
and Drugs Act of 1875. The offence alleged against the Defendant is that he sold to the
prejudice of the purchaser as brandy that which was not of the nature, substance and quality
of brandy. It was proved that on the 1st of March the Defendant's wife, who was serving
in the Defendant's wine and spirit merchant's shop, at 446, Hornsey Road, was asked by
the agent of the Inspector of Nuisances for the Borough of Islington for a bottle of brandy.
The Defendant's wile handed a bottle labelled "Fine Old Pale Brandy" to the agent, who
paid 3s. for it. The Inspector of Nuisances complied with the requirements of the Food
and Drugs Act, and submitted a third part of the contents of the bottle to Dr. Frank Litherland
Teed, the Public Analyst of the Borough of Islington, for analysis. After analysis
Dr. Teed on the assumption that brandy is an article the spirit of which is exclusively
derived from the grape gave a certificate that the sample submitted to him contained 60 per
cent. of spirit not derived from the grape, and upon that this summons was taken out.
Now the question before me is whether the bottle sold by Mrs. Hillyer on Defendant's
behalf did contain what was asked for by the agent, and what it was represented by the
Defendant to contain. In other words—whether the contents of the bottle were brandy.
There is no standard for brandy, and before I can decide the question of whether this was
brandy I must make a standard for myself—a standard which represents what brandy in
this country is in the popular sense, that is I must find what the public, the ordinary purchaser
understands brandy to be. A great deal of evidence was given as to what brandy is. The
word is derived apparently from the term "brant wein "or" brand wein "from" branden"
to burn; distill plus wein, meaning burnt wine. The definitions given in many
dictionaries and encycloprdias were cited, amongst them Murray's dictionary, said to be
the latest English dictionary, which defines brandy as being " properly an ardent spirit
distilled from wine or grapes," but adds the name is also applied to spirits of similar
flavour or appearance obtained from otner materials." The Imperial Dictionary, Ogilvie's
last edition, defines brandy as "a spirituous liquor obtained by the distillation of wine or of
the refuse of the wine press." It also says "the name brandy is now given to spirit derived
from other liquors and in the United States particularly to that which is distilled from cider
and peaches." All the dictionaries cited agree that brandy is a spirit distilled or derived