View report page

1905]
248
It was proved that on the 21st June, 1905, the same agent asked at the wine and spirit
merchant's shop kept by the defendant Davidge, at 327, Hornsey Road, Islington, for a
bottle of Scotcn whiskey. A bottle filled with fluid and bearing the label " Fine Old Scotch
Whiskey " was handed to the agent, and for this he paid 2s. 6d.
Each bottle was at once handed by the agent to the Inspector of Nuisances, who did what
is required on the purchase of samples for snalysis, and subsequently a third part of each
purchase was handed to Dr. Frank Litherland Teed, the analyst for the Borough of Islington.
Dr. Teed analysed the samples and, after setting out the result of his analysis, certified
as to each sample that it "consisted entirely of Patent Still, silent or neutral spirit. Whiskey
should consist of spirit distilled in a pot still derived from malted barley, mixed or not
with unmalted barley and wheat or either of them. Such whiskey contains at least a coefficient
or total of the above-mentioned impurities of 380 parts per 100,000 fluid parts of absolute
alcohol. Patent Still spirit contains from 89 to 204 parts of total impurities, with an average
of 140 parts per 100,000 fluid parts of absolute alcohol."
To be clear, I will remark that the " impurities " here referred to are impurities chemically
only, such as acidity, aldehydes, furfural, ethers and higher alcohols
The contention of the prosecution is that Irish and Scotch whiskey are different kinds
of potable spirits, each made by a definite method, from definite materials and both containing
definite chemical properties. That both Irish and Scotch whiskey must be the result of
distillation in Ireland or Scotland respectively, by the pot still derived from cereal grain
indigenous to Ireland and Scotland. This cereal grain, the prosecution contends, in the case
of Irish whiskey, must be chiefly malted barley to which has been added smaller quantities
of barley, wheat, oats and rye or any of them, and, in the case of Scotch whiskey, malted
barley alone. The Defendants, on the other hand, say, through Counsel, that Irish whiskey
is a spirit distilled in Ireland from grain, and Scotch whiskey a spirit distilled in Scotland
from grain.
Every assistance has been given to me by the advocates on both sides, who have conducted
their cases admirably, a great deal of time has been given to the examination of a large
number of Witnesses, among whom were men of the highest position in the science of
chemistry, important members of the distilling trade, blenders of whiskey, merchants, medical
men and representatives of the public; in fact, the question of the manufacture and consumption
of whiskey has been thoroughly dealt with before me in the course of these cases;
though I must say that I regret that Dr. Schidrowitz, who I have reason to believe is considered to be a
great authority on the chemistry and analysis of whiskey, and who was so frequently referred
to, was not examined though he was generally in Court with the representatives of the
defendants during the hearing of the cases. I must draw my own conclusions why Dr. Schidrowitz
d'd not give evidence.
The questions I have now to decide are difficult. They are, whether the fluid sold by
the defendants Wells and Davidge, or their servants, to the agent of the Inspector of Nuisances
of the Borough of Islington were respectively Irish and Scotch whiskey.
Before i can decide this i must find what is understood in this country by the word
"whiskey." Few people comparatively have, of course, ever really thought of what they