Annual report of the public analyst appointed for the parish of Kensington for the year ended 31st March, 1889.

  • Cassal, Charles E.
Date:
1889
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Annual report of the public analyst appointed for the parish of Kensington for the year ended 31st March, 1889. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    27/34 (page 25)
    Ca<ie .-1. The sample ^Yas sold by an itinerant vendor who iivo<l outside tln^ ])arish, hut who had disa))peared from In's lodgings when the summons was taken there. Case B, This ease presented several points of interest. The milk had been certified to contain at least 25 i)er cent, of extraneous water. A portion of tlie sample submitted at the time of the analysis was forwarded hy me, with all due precautions, to the Public Analyst for another Parish. The result of the analysis made hy him was entirel}'- confirmatory, and the presence of at least 25 i)er cent, of extraneous water was thus doubly certified to. The Defendant, through his solicitor, applied to have the Sample” sent to Somerset House, for analysis. It appears that the sample left in accordance with the Act by the Inspector with the Defendatit was then handed bv the Defendant’s solicitor to the authorities of the ('onrt for transmission to Somerset House. This was not disallowed at the time, although it is perfectly clear that the Act requires the Inspector s xesGvyQ sample to be the one upon which the Somerset House analysis should be made. The Inspector’s sample was, however, also forwarded to Somerset House on the same day, as soon as the above facts became a])parent. The Scmerset House (Certificate, which was put in at the second hearins of the case, stated that the milk contained not less than 22 per cent, of added water,” and was, in fact, a practical confirmation of the results previously recorded. It was therefore pointed out to the Bench, 1st. That the adulteration was at least 25 per cent, as certified by two Public Analysts from analyses of the milk as sold. 2nd. That while the Somerset House Certificate was piatically confirmatory, the difference in the figures was no doubt due to the time which had necessarily elapsed before thi.s latter analysis could be made. 3rd. That the sending of the Defendant’s instead of the Inspector’s .sample to Somerset House was irregular.