View report page

206
Thereupon I reported to the Sanitary Committee that the
presence of sulphate of lime in milk of sulphur was an adulterant,
and I recommended prosecutions.
The Sanitary Committee adopted the recommendation.
In these milk of sulphur cases, again, the accuracy of the
analyses was not disputed, but an obstinate fight was made
upon the ground that "Milk of sulphur" was expected by the
purchaser to contain sulphate of lime. The real strength of
the defendant's position lay in the fact that in some previous
cases the magistrates had refused to convict, or the conviction
had been over-ruled by Quarter Sessions. In point of fact,
those cases had been prosecuted in a perfunctory way, while
the defendants had fought the question with great skill and
tenacity, and I reported to the Sanitary Committee that, in
my opinion chose decisions would be reversed if the matter
were carried to a higher court, and that public policy required
their reversal.
After a long and patient hearing by Mr. Hannay at
Marlborough Street, the learned magistrate adjourned
the case in order to look up the subject, and upon
its coming on again he saw so much difficulty in over-ruling
a former decision of Quarter Sessions that he again adjourned
the case sine die. This course on the part of the magistrate
left the defendants mulcted by the payment of all their costs
unless they applied again for a decision, and tendered
evidence to rebut the presumption raised by the evidence of
the Public Analyst. No further application has been
made by the defendants, and that prosecution will
probably prevent the future sale as "milk of sulphur"
of precipitated sulphur adulterated with plaster of Paris.
There is, in my opinion, no excuse in law for the sale of
anything but pure precipitated sulphur when "milk of