View report page

94
Justice have been given during the year under the
Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. In Harris v. May
(L.E. 12, Q.B.D. 97) a general contract for the supply
of pure milk was held not to be the specific warranty required
by section 25 of the Act 1875, in order to protect
the retailer from penalty for selling adulterated
milk in the same state as when he purchased it. In
Gage v. Elsey (L.R. 10, Q.B.D. 518) it was held that
section 6 of the Act of 1879 does not affect the operation
of section 8 of the principal Act, and that the
vendor of any spirits reduced by water below the
standard strength would not be guilty of an offence
under the last-named Act if he could show that
adequate notification of the dilution had been given to
the purchaser. In Chappell v. Enson (47.J.P. 804)
the purchaser of an article of food notified to the
seller that it was his intention to have it analysed by
the Public Analyst, and offered to "divide it," but
the seller refused, the offer. The justices convicted,
but it was contended before the High Court that the
purchaser ought, in the words of the statute, to have
offered to "divide it into three parts." The Court,
however, held that the time had not come to offer to
divide it into three parts, because the vendor refused
the offer to divide it; and the appeal was accordingly
dismissed.