View report page

6
The narrative of the case, and the text of the certificates and
correspondence are appended.
9. The Law governing Analysts as to the form of their
certificates is clearly laid down by the High Court of Justice
in the appeal case Fortune v. Hanson. A report of this case
will be found in The Times of January 28th, 1896. After
hearing argument by counsel, the judges are reported as.
follows:—
"Mr. Justice Hawkins thought the certificate here did
not conform to the requirements of the Act. It was
admitted that milk naturally had water in it, and therefore
it was necessary, in his opinion, that the magistrate should
know what standard the Analyst took. Standards differed
greatly, the magistrate might take one, the Analyst
another. To say there was 5 % of added water was
merely an opinion of the Analyst. The justices ought to
know upon what percentage he based his calculation. It was
not as if water was a substance totally unknown to milk
in its pure state.
"Mr. Justice Kennedy concurred. The certificate was to
give substantially the data on which the justices could act for
themselves. It would be wrong to convict upon a mere
statement that there was 5 % of added water. The
analysis should be clear, and afford materials on which the
justices and the accused also might know how the result had.
been arrived at."
It will be seen from this ruling that, apart from the commonsense
duty of so framing a certificate as to enable the
magistrate to apply his personal judgment to the case, the Law
makes it incumbent upon the Analyst to specify in his certificate
the standard which he takes for the calculation of added water.
Such cases, moreover, have first to be adjudicated upon by the
Local Authority—so far as to determine whether a prosecution
shall be ordered. The reasoning applied by the Judges as to
what the Analyst's certificate should make clear to the
magistrate, applies equally to what the certificate should make
clear to the members of the Local Authority, and, moreover,
also to the person accused of the adulteration.
10. The Standard with which a condemned milk is compared
in order to calculate its percentage of added water, is often confused
with the limit at which a deficiency of milk-solids is no
longer excused. Yet the standard and the limit are altogether
different things. For different countries, and even for different
seasons or pastoral conditions, the standard may need to be