View report page

59
and Drugs Acts, they are now sold as diluted spirits; no alcoholic
strength guaranteed."
The importance of this case, and its far-reaching effect, was evident
to the licensed victualler; and all the remaining summonses were
adjourned pending the result of the prosecution in this case.
The Chairman of the Hampstead Justices, in giving the considered
decision of the Bench, said they were of opinion that in this case the
notice exhibited was ambiguous and misleading, and did not convey to
the mind of the purchaser the fact that when he asked for rum he was
being supplied with spirit which was more than 35 degrees under
proof. The Appeal was heard in the King's Bench Division before the
Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Avory, and Mr. Justice Salter. The
Court held, in a considered judgment, that the two questions involved
were:—(i) What was the substance of the information which must be
given to the purchaser?—which was a question of law. The purchaser
must be told in substance that the thing which he was getting was
not the thing he asked for. (ii) Were the steps taken sufficient, in all
the circumstances, to convey this information to an average purchaser?
—which was a question of fact for the Justices. The saying that
"everyone is supposed to know the law" is too general. The maxim
is: Ignorantia legis neminetn excusat. It cannot be accepted as a defence
against a charge of breach of the law. But, in considering this notice,
the Justices would properly remember that the average customer probably knows nothing of the Food and Drugs Acts. It would be
unfortunate if a form of notice could be hall-marked by the Courts,
so that any seller could evade the Act by hanging the notice up. To
repeat a phrase used in the argument in the present case, it is not
possible for the Court to "pass" a form of notice, because the sufficiency
of the notice in the circumstances of the case is for the Justices in
each case.
The Appeal was dismissed with costs.
In 1925, further samples of spirits were submitted for analysis,
but not one was found to be below the legal limit. In no case was any
form of " Notice" displayed.
Food Poisoning.
During the latter half of 1925 a complaint was received of illness
following the eating of apples. The symptoms complained of were
vomiting, colic, diarrhoea and general depression. Two members of the
household were affected in varying degree, but with similar symptoms