RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3729, 4 February 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, Februarv4. (Before J. Bathgate, Eeq., R.M,) Drunkenness.— Thomas AUG owan was discharged with a caution. Charles liobinson was nned'Os, with the option of twenty four hours’ imprisonment. Vagrancy. —Thomas Hill, for having no lawful means ef support, was sent to gaol for six days. Theft. —John Murphy was charged with stealing a swag containing clothing, the- property of John Connell. Prisoner only having been arrested shortly before the sitting of the Gout t, and the witnesses for the prosecution not being in attendance, the ease was ad joitrued till tomorrow, hail ludug* allowed in prisoners own recognisance of I JO, and two sureties of 1.5 each. J 111 EACH ES OF THE AnUJ.TKRATIOX OI- FOOD Act. John Crick'nore wa< charged P\- ! .iiit.b -.VO-. .... . ~g . ‘ "■ •v 1 • 1 ! ■ - ; ot.:. v, ;■ rim com m of an ama.-iag address to ♦ I■ * Lien, that the case was brought under the 4t,h section of the Adulteration of Food Act, 3-SfWi, and although the penalties appeared somewhat stringent they became comparatively small to persons in id- ..-ire.u o es of debndantand otuers wlm would b- hr u.-ht before tin; Court. I lie man woo sold drink t,hat was adulterated and tints defrauded the public, had us much right to bo punished anyone who committo 1 forgery, or any such offence. (Mr Harris; Hear, hoar; and laughter.) Ho purchased spirits indiscriminately from evevv booth on the Caledonian Ground. Witness ‘ having been sworn, milled that 1m visited the Caledonian Gathering on Jan. 1, He went to defendant’* bootn and purchased two shillings’ worth of rum, telling the vendor (John Fargie) that he purchased the liquor for the purpose of having it analysed to se* if it wore adulterated, and further, that if Fargie thought ho was likely to tamper with it he might take it and have it analysed himself. Witness sealed the bottle and Fargie stated the proportion contained i was one gallon of water to four of spirits. ■ the battle, along with others, witness gave to 1 Mr 1 urdio, janitor at the Uuiveisity, to be minded over to iTofes-or Black. He after- 1 wards received the result of the analysis. Idenhtic i tl- ■ ■ ’ odiced as that got from said that derem....... , i; a, ; t >,’ day in qncatiou. hj ue , uni : from the shop of his father to tii.- b -m... ■ d

»l'M as received. His father purchased the rum from an importer iu town, and had been in the store since July 1873. Witness bottled it from the cask, and reduced it a little with the Company’s water. —His Worship: Then the question may be as to whether that is not adulteration.—Mr Harris ;If your Worship comeiqto that conclusion, I think I can say that taore is not one storekeeper or publican in the 1 own "'ho holds a license that is not Ity of a breach of the 'Act. Professor

'.■lick’s analysis of the bottle produced showed that the rum was fifteen degrees under pr >.>f, and contained sulphuric acid and capper. The result really meant that of a radon of the liquid eighty-livo per cent, was spirits, fifteen water, and approximately twenty grams of sulphate of acid. Witness could not tell when the copper and other ingredients were added to the liquid ; possibly shortly after the manufacture. —Mr Harris contended that this case was of more importance to the public than the sly grog cases brought before the Court by complainant. The evidence showed .that it was most difficult to bring home the offence to any particular party. The adulteration (as was stated by Professor Black) might have taken place when the liquor was manufactured at Home, while in the hands of the importer, or by Mr Favgie; but it was proved that it could not have been adulterated with defendant’s knowo>. .ici'ot having seen it.—His Worship agreed ’• ' ■.' iT,s : ’.s i.o the importance of these ‘ grog-seller defrauded the cm >!. (r.. '.uid p, was a notorious fact that the former, m orocr to cover his risk, was bound to adulterate his liquor. The difficulty or bringing home the charge had been mentioned. They read every day of the mad acts of persons when under the influence of liquor, find iu the interior of the country persons were ; reduced to a state of partial insanity, and death often ensued. He looked upon the offence as a very serious one, and, if proved, he would inflict the full penalty the law allowed; but to do this, he required full and undoubted proof. Prosecutor did not require to prove that defendant had adulterated the liquor; all he had to do was to prove that he bought the liquor, and that it was adulterated. He (his Worship) had no doubt about the purchase of the bottle, or that it was sent to Professor Black and found to contain copper. It was possible that defendant knew nothing about it: indeed it was proved that he never saw the liquor and knew nothing about it. Those circumstances rendered the case peculiar and special. Prosecutor must satisfy ths Bench that he told the person from whom he bought the liquor of his intention of having it analysed, and. that he gave opportunity for accompanying him and seeing it was analysed, or he must seal and commit it to safe custody for transmission to the analyst; in other words, it should be entrusted to some one, and not taken by the prosecutor himself, _as ha might tamper with it. In dismissing the case his Worship said : The conduct of Mr Lumb in bringing forward cases under the Adulteration of Food Act is deserving of the highest approbation at the hands ef the citizens at large. He fills a most important duty, and one in which the public should give lam the greatest support. I must dismiss the case, but commend Mr Lumb for his diligence m bringing it forward.—Similar charges against • 3 ® unn i n ff> J* Fidler, and others were withdrawn on payment of costs. —Mr Barton, who defended Dunning, said that the whisky in question was sold by his client in the state he had pin-chased it, and suggested that the Collector of Customs should take samples of spirits from the Home ships before it was landed, and have t jem tested to ascertain to what extent they were adulterated in the Home Country.—His \\ 01-ship thought those who could afford it sent Home for their own liquor, because then it was ■ genuine, but they could not trust the persons here who sold it. Not one-half of the port or sherry sold here ever saw Spain, and he was informed on i enable authority that our senators last session sent Home for their drink. Presenter ought uot to relax in his efforts to see the public get adulterated liquor. Pape. The Court was cleared while the charge against Thomas Johnston was heard. After two witnesses had been examined, the prisoner was remanded till next day.