View report page

143
observed by a purchaser it is 110 notice at all, and even in the absence of
evidence of intentional concealment, the seller is not protected by the section.
Dicta of Lord Alverstone, C.J., in Pearks, Gunston & Tee, Ltd., e
Houghton, 1902, 1 K.B. 889; and Hayes v. Rule (1902), 87 L.T. 133
followed. Jones r. Jones (1894), 58 J.P. 653 dissented from.
Gjumble & Co., Limited v. Preston.
12 L.G.R. 382.
(Before Darling, Rowlatt and Atkin, J.J.)
Food—False warranty to Purchaser—Place where given—Jurisdiction of
Justices in place where received —Analyst's certificate —Omission to serve
copy with summons—Waiver—Meaning of " Malt Vinegar "—Sale of Food
and' Drugs Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict., c. 51, ss. 19 (2), 20 (5) (6).
A charge of false warranty of food may be entertained under section 20 of
the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, l!-99, before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction
at the place where the warranty has been received by the purchaser,
notwithstanding that the label warranting them may have been attached to
the goods, and the invoice embodying the warranty may have been written
and posted, at a place outside the jurisdiction of such Court.
The requirement of section 19 of the Act that, in any prosecution under the
Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, a copy of the analyst's certificate obtained by
the prosecutor must be served with the Summons, does not deprive the
Justicps, forming such a Court, of jurisdiction to hear the information. Such
a failure to serve the copy certificate with the summons is an informality
only, which may be waived by the defendant.
\Vhere a warranty has been given that vinegar was " pure malt vinegar,"
and the analysis of the vinegar obtained by the prosecutor showed that 30 per
cent, of it was not derived from malted barley or cereals and contained only
•024 of phosphoric acid, and the Somerset House analysis showed that a third
of the vinegar consisted of vinegar not derived from malt, evidence that
vinegar, containing less than *05 per cent, of phosphoric acid, was not malt
vinegar but vinegar which must have been made from something other than
malt or cereals was held sufficient to support the finding of the Justices that
the warranty was false.
Marcus v. Crook.
12 L.G.R. 923.
(Before Avory, Rowlatt and Shearman, J.J.)
Food—Adulteration—Warranty—Notice to warrantor of intention to rely
on warranty — Time within which notice must be sent—Sale of Food and
Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 63), ss. 6, 25—Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict., c. 51), 8. 20.
Where a defendant to proceedings under section 6 of the Sale of Food and
Drugs Act, 1875, gives notice that he intends to rely on a warranty as a
defence, such notice, upon the true construction of section 20, sub-section (1),
of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, need only be given " within seven