View report page

14
is obtained. This, as you are aware, is the plan adopted in
our parish. Under no circumstances do I know the source of the
sample submitted to me. The Inspector hands it in marked with a
number or a letter, and that only. In my certificate, I merely refer
to the sample by its mark. In this way we prevent certificates
being used for trade purposes.
Again, I should much wish that the words in Section VI.,
"suspected to be adulterated," were omitted. Although I am convinced
they are intended to be taken in a general sense, and not a
special one, they may give rise to difficulties by captious word-splitters.
I have in Islington made an examination of articles of food from
every shop selling those articles, in localities decided by me. In this
way only do I consider we can prevent this Act becoming the handle
for intolerable persecution and unlimited annoyance to tradesmen—
and this it is our duty to prevent. The Court of Queen's Bench has
decided, in the case of "Fitzpatrick v. Kelly," that it is not
necessary on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilty
knowledge of the seller of the article in question ; and further, that
when a purchaser asked for an article and was served with it, and
the purchaser not told it was adulterated, the seller represented
thereby that it was pure. Mr. Justice Blackburn pointed out there
was no hardship in this, as any tradesman who was desirous of
selling adulterated articles could always escape the penalties of the
Act by informing the purchaser that the articles were adulterated.
But this being the meaning of the Act, I could much wish for some
alteration in the wording of Sections II. and III.
I am anxious moreover to draw your attention to another
point. I have, up to this period, personally attended to give
evidence in prosecutions under the Act in Islington. The Act
however does not require it. Section IX. declares that the
certificate is sufficient evidence of the matters therein certified,
unless the magistrate has scientific evidence of an error in the
analysis. Mr. Lushington, at the Thames Police Court, in a case
I was engaged upon a short time back, further gave his opinion
that the Analyst need not appear. Under these circumstances
I have decided not to give evidence again personally, but, as the Act
directs, to allow my certificate to be sufficient evidence of the
adulteration.