WHAT WE DRINK.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2734, 21 November 1871, Page 2

WHAT WE DRINK.

To the Editor. Sir— ln the Magistrate’s Court on the 17th there was a case—Finch v. Reeves—about the quality of 10 hhds. ale, bought from him through his agent, MrSpedding. According to the Daily Times, it came out hi evidence that six of the ten Mr Finch sold to Mr genijett, of the Clarence Hotel, and Mr Hancock, of the Queens Arms. That Mr Bennett paid Mr Finch Jjalf the agreed on price only for the two hhds. he got, as the beer was bad. He was sure it had been tampered with, and he had taken turn hhds. of Colonial beer from a local brewer in exWould Mr Bennett favor the public tb 1 iiafife the buyer ’ Mr Hancock returned his four hhds., which were afterwards bought by Messrs Marshal and Copland at 22» Gd per hhd. Mr Spedding thought the only use the beer could be put to would be to make vinegar of it. Many brewers in other parts of the world receive beer or ale that may have turned sour, &c., back from their customers and mix it in a new brew, or, if it is very bad, convert it into porter. The brewer who bought Mr Bennett’s of course will not do so with his purchase ; neither will M essrs Marshal and Copland do so with their’s. Six of the ten hhds. of ale are accounted for so far. I wonder what became of the other four ? Will the Board of Health or the public trouble themselves to inquire ? It appears to the writer that, if auy fiesher had sold or offered for sale ten carcasses of beef tainted from auy cause whatever, a strict investigation would have followed. The difference between the two cases is—the tainted beer was to be retailed as drink, and the tainted beef to be retailed as food.— I am, &c.,

A Consumer ok Ale and Beef