View report page

64
Proceedings for penalties were taken in three cases, and
the vendors of samples submitted to analysis were
cautioned in two other cases, where the extent of adulteration,
as a first offence, did not appear to warrant prosecution.
A penalty of 20s. was inflicted for the sale of
vinegar, certified to contain 28 per cent. of added water.
In two cases of milk of sulphur, certified to contain 103/4
and 35½ per cent. respectively, of gypsum, summonses were
taken out, but not finally adjudicated upon. The case of
the Vestry was that milk of sulphur, which admittedly
can only be prepared by precipitation, is synonymous
with precipitated sulphur of the British Pharmacopoeia, and
should, consequently, consist of pure sulphur only, and this
view was supported by references to recognised
authorities. To rebut this view, the solicitor for the defence
called attention to an appeal at the Knutsford Quarter
Sessions in April, 1887 (Reg. v. Marshall), in which the
Court held that the evidence then adduced satisfied them
that milk of sulphur, precipitated by sulphuric acid and
containing gypsum, was recognised in the trade as a distinct
article from precipitated sulphur, precipitated by
hydrochloric acid as directed by the British Pharmacopoeia
and consisting of pure sulphur only. This appeal has not
been reported in any of the recognized reports, but is fully
given in the Chemist and Druggist, a trade journal of the
period. The solicitor for the defence stated that he was
prepared to bring forward similar evidence on the present
occasion, and the magistrate said that although the point
raised by the Vestry was no doubt a strong one, yet if he
felt bound to convict after hearing all the evidence, his decision
would not carry much weight, and he therefore
thought the best course would be to adjourn the further