- Email: [email protected]
Law reports
LAW REPORTS. the public mains for certain hours of the d a y - Bedford Well water for the r e m a i n i n g h o u r s - - a c o n s t a n t supply being kept up. T h e salinity a n d hardness (most of which is consequent to the salinity) of the water are the objections to the present supply, which has been constant, a b u n d a n t and organically pure. T h e salinity is not due to direct c o n t a m i n a t i o n by sea water. T h e salts are mainly calcium a n d s o d i u m chlorides, a n d the proportions of the salts in the water are utterly different to their respective proportions in sea water. O n August i a t h , owing to the increasing salinity o f the main supply, a new supply was, on the urgent representation of the Corporation, provided by the C o m p a n y by stand-pipe. T h i s new supply was from Holywell, a n d of excellent quality, its one drawback being the lack of quantity. A report of analysis of this water is appended, also one o f the general supply. # Report o n a sample of water from the public m a i n , E a s t b o u r n e (Bedford Well water), September 22nd (this sample was taken when the salinity was about at its worst ; even the Bedford Well water is now n o t saline to the taste) : Parts per IOO)OOo. t Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2m'6o Total dissolve'.l mineral matter . . . . . . 397"39 Free ammonia ............ o.oo3z Albuminoid ammonia .. . . . . . . . o'oo65 Oxygen absorbed from permanganate in 15 minutes ........ o.o193 Ditto in four hours~'both at 80 F . . . . 0"0258 Total Solids, dried at 212 F . . . . . . . 449.2o Loss on ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . 61"84 Mineral matter left on ignition . . . . . . 387"36 Colour of Water . . . . . . . . . Faint blue T h e mineral substances e n u m e r a t e d i n the analysis occur, as far as can be stated, in the supply in the form of the following salts : ~ Sodium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnesium chloride ......... Calcium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . Calcium sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . Calcium nitrate ............ Calcium carbonate ......... Silica... Oxide of iron. . . . . ................ . . . . + Hardness calculated from above results
207.04 35.12 91 "78 45"44 3"77
i2.7i
I'I2 0"40
397"38 171"1
T h e Analyst says of the sample " t h e water is o f great organic purity," a n d it was taken when the salinity was about at its highest a n d when Holywell water was obtainable, Le., water the report of analysis of which is given below. • This Holywell water, supplemented by a new supply of water from Wannock, is now (April ISth), supplied in the ordinary mains for alI purposes, the standpipes being discontinued. The service is a high pressure constant o) e as it has always been. ¢ Chlorine now (March 1st) I2 gr. per gallon. ++Now about 25 instead of 17I.
3o 5
Report on a sample of Holywell water of D e c e m b e r 8th, x896: ioo, oco parts were found to contain : ~ Chlorine ............... 5"5° Sulphuric acid ............ r'12 Nitric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . I "73 Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . none Free Ammonia ......... o.oo3! Albuminoid Ammonia ......... o'oo48 Oxygen absorbed from permanganate in 15 minutes ...... o'oo28 Ditto in four hours~'{~othai'8o F . . . . o'ot12 Total solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 "4o Loss on ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . i"84 Hardness (total) . . . . . . I6 '* degrees Clark " This is a very good sampIe of water in every way. Organically it is exceptionally pure, and the a m o u n t of m i n e r a l matter is moderate.
LAW REPORTS. FEBRUARY ruTH AND n T m (Before MR. JUSTICE BRUCE, WithOUt 0: ~ll~)'.) HOLLAND V. LAZARUS.
3/[etropoIis--Wuisance-- Combined System ~f .Drainage sanctioned 3y Vestry-- Unaulhorised Addition or'Rain-Water Pi~e--" D r a i n " or " S e w e r " - Melropolis Management Act, x855 ( i 8 and x 9 Vigl., c. I2O), s. 250. .4 drain f o r the drainage of four houses by a combined o2Oeration was constructed under the order <~ a veslry. .4 ~i~e which carried olfrain waterfront the roof of a fifth house was, without the sa~lc/ion of the vesgry, turned into and connected with this drain. Jge/d, that the rain water ~i~e re,as a drain within section 25o o f the 3~elro2OoNs A(anagemenl Act, 1855 , and that its unauthomsed connection with the drain belonging to the four houses con. verted the latter from the ~oint of junction and onwards into a sewer. T h e plaintiff was the owner of a c o m m o n lodgmghouse, I8A, Dyssel Street, H a c k n e y . T h e plaintiff claimed damages by reason of the defendant having wrongfully created a nuisance by permitting sewage matter to percolate through the soil into the plaintiff's premises, whereby the plaintiff suffered damage in his business. T h e defendant was the owner of four houses, Nos. 2% 22, 24, a n d a6, Dyssel Street which adjoined the plaintiff's premises. T h e defendant purchased the lease of these houses in October, 1895. T h e defendant's houses were built in x884, a n d were all d r a i n e d into a drain which ran u n d e r the land on which the premises now occupied by the plaintiff were subsequently built. A t the time the drain was constructed the l a n d on which No. 18A was afterwards built belonged to the same owner as Nos. 20 to 26. T h e drain was constructed u n d e r an order of the vestry authorising the drainage of the four houses, Nos. 2o to 26, into one drain. T h e nuisance was alleged to arise from the
306
LAW
REPORTS.
defective condition of that part of the drain of Nos. 20 to z6 which was under the plaintiff's premises. It appeared that a pipe which carried the rain water from the roof of the plaintiff's premises had been connected with the defendant's drain. There was no evidence to show when or by whom this rain-water pipe was connected with the defendant's drain, but the builder who made the defendant's drain, and who also built the plaintiff's premises, denied having made the connection. Evidence was called for the defence to show that the nuisance, if any, was caused by the defective condition of the plaintiff's rain-water pipe and by the faulty manner in which it had been connected with the defendant's drain. The defendant contended that his drain had become a sewer by reason of the connection, and that the vestry and not the defendant were liable if it was out of repair. F. O. Robinson (with him I-Z. A. Porman) for the defendant.--The defendant's drain in the first instance was lawfully made to drain more than one house, but it now drains another house, No. I8A, without any order from the vestry. I t does not come within the definition of " d r a i n " in section 250 of the Act of x855, and is a sewer. Although the plaintiff's pipe only carries off rain water, it is nevertheless primd facie a drain within the Act, and, being a drain, its unauthorised connection with the defendant's drain makes the latter at the point of junction and onward a sewer. Afacashie, for the plaintiff.--The cases cited do not apply, for in them there were drains draining more than one house without any order of the vestry. In this case the drain carries off the drainage of more than one house under an order of the vestry. The case therefore comes within the latter part of the definition of " d r a i n " in section 25% and the mere addition to it of a drain from another house does not make it a sewer. Secondly, a rain-water pipe is not a drain at all within the Act. Bruce, jr.--This is an action for damages for an alleged nuisance, occasioned by sewage, to the plaintiË"s premises. The plaintiff occupies a lodging house; the defendant is the owner of four houses drained by a drain consisting of a six-inch pipe, which passes under the plaintiff's house. It has been proved that this drain was made in accordance with plans which were submitted to and approved by the vestry. I was asked by counsel for the defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case to hold that this drain was a sewer within the definition in section 250 of the Act of x855. I inclined to the opinion at that time that it was a drain and not a sewer, and I therefore determined to hear the evidence for the defence. Upon t h e evidence I am of opinion that the plaintiff's drain was defective, but I do not think that the escape of sewage from the defendant's drain was of sufficient volume to cause any
appreciable damage. I think, however, that on the authority of f-Zumphreys v. Cousins (I877. 46 L.J.C.P. 438 ; u C.P.D. 239) there is a technical cause of action, in respect of 'which tt/e plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages. As to the question whether the defendant's drain at the point at which it received the plaintiff's rain-water pipe became a sewer, I have, upon consideration of Reg. v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, modified the view I expressed during the course of the argument. This drain, when provided by the defendant to drain his four houses, was a drain draining more than one house under a system of combined drainage sanctioned by the vestry, and consequently it was not at that time a sewer. But when the drainage of the rain-water pipe from the plaintiff's house was turned into it, it then drained five houses ; and with reference to the fifth house, there was no order for combined drainage, so that the drain did not come within the second branch of the definition of the word " d r a i n " in section 250, as I at first thought it might. When it became the drain of the fifth house, without any order of the vestry sanctioning the combined operation as regards the fifth house, it ceased to be a drain and became a sewer. I can find no authority as to whether a drain is. only a drain within section 250 , when used to carry off sewage and not water, or whether it i slequ~illy a drain when it merely carries off rain water from the roof of a house. The plaintiff's drain which joined the defendant's only carried off rain water. There is authority for saying that a p!pe which only carries off surface water from a fieldis not a drain within the Act ; but in my opinion, whether it carries off rain water or sewage f r o m a building, it isstill a drain for drainage of a building within section z5o ; and as soon as the drain of the fifth house was joined on to that which drained the other four, the drain from that point onwards became a sewer. I do not think this affects my decision as to the plaintiff's right to nominal damages, because, according to Humdbkreys v. Cousins, the defendant was not entitled to turn his sewage on the plaintiff's premises. I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for one farthing. [The judge directed that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for one farthing, and further directed that the defendant do have the costs of the action, except such as may have been incurred solely on the point as to which the plaintiff has recovered nominal damages, namely the issues as to the flowing of sewage on the plaintiff's land.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.--MAY 6th, x897. DERBYSHm~ (appellant) v. HOULISTOr~ (respondent).
AdulteratTon-- Written Warranty--Nature, Substance, and Quality of Article demanded--
LAW REPORTS.
Scienter--Sale of ~ood and Drugs Act, x875 (38 and 39 Vict., c. 63), s. 27. Case stated by the Stipendiary Magistrate for the City of Manchester. The appellant was summoned under section 27 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, *875, upon the information of the respondent (an inspector of nuisances for the City of Manchester) for giving on September 8, x896 , a false warranty in writing to a purchaser, to wit, Martin Hopkins, in respect to an article of food, to wit, butter, then sold by him to the said Hopkins, and subsequently, to wit, on September ,6th, ~896 , sold by Hopkins to the respondent, the said article not being of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the respondent. By section ~7 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, r875, it is provided that "Every person who shall give a false warranty in writing to any purchaser in respect of an article of food or drug sold by him as principal or agent, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and be liable to a penalty not exceeding Twenty pounds." On September i6tb, ,896, the respondent purchased at the shop of Hopkins a pound of butter, marked, "pure butter xod." The butter was adulterated, containing 33 per cent. of water. Hopkins had, on September 8th, I896, purchased the butter from the appellant as being the same in nature, substance, and quality as that demanded of him by the respondent, and with a written warranty to that effect. The written warranty contained the words, "warranted pure butter." Hopkins had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was otherwise, and he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it. The appellant purchased the butter on August zznd, ~896 , from one Maloney, is the same in nature, substance, and quality as that so sold by the appellant to Hopkins, and with a written warranty to that effect, and the appellant had no reason to believe at the time he sold it to Hopkins that the article was otherwise, and the appellant sold it in the same state as when he purchased it. The written warranty received from Maloney by the appellant contained the words, "Guaranteed pure Irish butter." The magistrate being of opinion that it was not necessary to prove that the appellant at the time when he gave the warranty to Hopkins knew that it was false, convicted him. C. A. Russell, Q.C. (.F. gar. ~rellor with him) for the appellant, contended that guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant in giving the warranty to Hopkins must be shown. Lawson Walton, Q.C. (ReginaM Brown with him) for the respondent. The Court (Hawkins,~, and V:r:gM, J.) held that guilty knowledge must be shown, and quashed the conviction. Conviction quashed.
307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.--QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.--MAY7TH, 1897. (Before MR. JUSTICE H.~,WKINS and MR. JUSTICE
WRIGHT.) 7.).TAPLIN.
HOUGHTON
THIS was a case stated by justices of Richmond upon dismissing a summons under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Mr. A. Glen appeared for the appellant; and Mr.. Lawless for the respondent. An information was laid against the respondent charging him with selling to the prejudice of the appellant a drug, to wit, arsenical soap, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded, contrary to section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. The appellant asked for arsenical soap, and he was supplied by the respondent with a tablet of Dr. Mackenzie's arsenical toilet soap. The soap contained no arsenic. The magistrates dismissed the information, holding that though arsenical soap was a drug within the meaning of the Act, yet as the soap in question contained no arsenic it was not a drug and no offence had been committed. Mr. Glen contended that the subject of the sale was a drug, though it was proved that there were no medicinal properties in the article delivered. Mr. Justice Wright : Was not the article demanded a compounded drug and within the third exception in section 6 ? Mr. Glen: It was a compounded article, but not a compounded drug. The Court dismissed the appeal. Mr. Justice Hawkins on the ground that the soap was not a drug, and Mr. Justice Wright on the ground that the soap was a compounded drug within the meaning of subsection 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.--QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.--MAY X*TH, I897. (Before ~V[R. JUSTICE HAWKINS and MR. JUSTICE WRIGHT.) FIRTH V. STAINES.
This was a special case stated by a metropolitan magistrate. The appellant was the sanitary inspector in the employment of the vestry of the parish of St. Leonard, Shorediteh, which is a parish included in schedule A of the Metropolis Management Act, I855. The vestry, which was the sanitary authority for the parish, had under section 58 of the Act of 1855 appointed a committee, known as the Public Health Committee, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of various sanitary Acts of Parliament. The question in this case was as to the meaning of section 58 , which empowers the local bodies named therein to appoint committees for any purposes which, in the discretion of the local body, would be better regulated and
308
A N A L Y T I C A L NOTES.
managed by means of a committee, "provided always that the acts of every such committee should be submitted to the general body of the board or vestry appointing such committee for their approval:' A report having been made to the committee of the existence of a nuisance on the respondent's premises, the committee by resolution authorised the appellant to serve a notice on the respondent under section 85 of the Act requiring him to abate the nuisance. This was done, and the respondent having disregarded the notice, a summons was issued against him. The approval by the vestry of the proceedings was not obtained untll after the issue of the summons, and the magistrate held that, as the resolution of the committee had not been submitted to the vestry for their approval before the service of the notice, the notice was invalid, and he dismissed the summons. Mr. Cripps, Q,C., and Mr: R. C. Glen appeared for the appellent ; Mr. R. D. Muir for the respondent. The Court allowed the appeal. • Mr. Justice Hawkins said that in his opinion the decision of t h e magistrate was wrong. The case turned on section 58 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 , which gave to the vestry the power of appointing the committee. It was clear when section 58 was looked at in connexion with sections 83 to 85, which dealt with the abatement of nuisances, the committee had the same power in those matters as the vestry, subject to the approval of the " acts" of the committee by the vestry. It was said that in this case the vestry should have judicially considered the matter and given their approval before the issue of the notice. He could not help thinking that if a committee was appointed to do acts which in the judgment of the vestry could be better done by a committee than by the vestry, then the term "approval" was used advisedly as meaning that, although the committee could do the acts in question, they could not justify themselves unless at some time or other the approva! of the vestry was obtained. Otherwise the result would be that the approval of the vestry must be obtained prior to each step in the proceedings, and if that was so there might just as well be no committee at all. Moreover, if the committee could do no act without the approval of the vestry, then there could be no act done by the committee of which the vestry could approve. Mr. Justice Wright delivered judgment to the same effect. A SPECIAL Meeting of the British Institute of Public Health is announced to be held at the Guildhall, London, on June i6th, when an address of congratulation to Her Majesty on the completion of the sixtieth year of her reign will be proposed and Prof. von Pettenkofer presented with the Harben Medal.
A N A L Y T I C A L NOTES.
Zhe Estimation of Starch in Sausages. ]. Mayrlmfer. (Forsch. Ber. ;, through Zeit-Nahr. Unters., Vienna, x896, x., 331, 33z).--The method hitherto employed for the estimation of meal and other starch-containing substances in sausages has been the inversion of the starch present and determination of the sugar produced. Since this, in the author's opinion, is too tedious, and often unsatisfactory, he brings forward in its place the following simple process :--The substance under examination is heated on the water-bath with alcoholic potash (about 8 per cent.), which, in the case of pure sausages, dissolves ahnost everything except a little cellulose. The solution is diluted with warm alcohol, to prevent gelatinization, and filtered through a paper or asbestos filter. The insoluble residue, containing the starch when present, is washed with alcohol until the washings are no longer alkaline, then treated with aqueous potash, and the starch solution made up to a definite volume. On adding alcohol to an aliquot portion, the starch falls as a floceulent precipitate, which rapidly subsides. This is collected on a weighed filter, washed with alcohol and ether, dried and weighed. In order to avoid a determination of the ash, it is advisable to make the starch precipitation from a weak acetic acid solution instead of from an alkaline solution, since the acetate formed from the potassium carbonate in the starch is really soluble in alcohol. By this means the starch isobtained quite free from ash. From 6o to 80 grammes of the sausage should be taken for the determination, since the starch is usually not regularly distributed throughout the nlass.
Tubercle Bacilli in Butler.--Tubercle Bacilli may be separated from butter by melting five grams of butter at 5o° in a test tube, shaking thoroughly with warm water, closing the tube with an india-rubber cork, allowing to stand upside down. After cooling the bacilli will be found in the water. Nitrates in Water.uA few c.c. of the sample are evaporated to dryness, and six drops of a saturated solution of phenol in hydrochloric acid are at once added. Sometimes it is advisable to slightly warm the reagents. I f nitrates are present, a reddish-violet-colouration is obtained, which on adding ammonia changes to emerald green. Examination qf Pe~ers. F. J3aur and A. Jffilger (Forschungsber-Lebensmittel, etc., 1896 , iii., 113, through Chem. Zeit. Rep., 1896, IS6. ) The best method for testing the purity of pepper depends on the estimation of the piperine, either in the form of piperic acid or by titration as
207.04 35.12 91 "78 45"44 3"77
i2.7i
I'I2 0"40
397"38 171"1
T h e Analyst says of the sample " t h e water is o f great organic purity," a n d it was taken when the salinity was about at its highest a n d when Holywell water was obtainable, Le., water the report of analysis of which is given below. • This Holywell water, supplemented by a new supply of water from Wannock, is now (April ISth), supplied in the ordinary mains for alI purposes, the standpipes being discontinued. The service is a high pressure constant o) e as it has always been. ¢ Chlorine now (March 1st) I2 gr. per gallon. ++Now about 25 instead of 17I.
3o 5
Report on a sample of Holywell water of D e c e m b e r 8th, x896: ioo, oco parts were found to contain : ~ Chlorine ............... 5"5° Sulphuric acid ............ r'12 Nitric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . I "73 Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . none Free Ammonia ......... o.oo3! Albuminoid Ammonia ......... o'oo48 Oxygen absorbed from permanganate in 15 minutes ...... o'oo28 Ditto in four hours~'{~othai'8o F . . . . o'ot12 Total solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 "4o Loss on ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . i"84 Hardness (total) . . . . . . I6 '* degrees Clark " This is a very good sampIe of water in every way. Organically it is exceptionally pure, and the a m o u n t of m i n e r a l matter is moderate.
LAW REPORTS. FEBRUARY ruTH AND n T m (Before MR. JUSTICE BRUCE, WithOUt 0: ~ll~)'.) HOLLAND V. LAZARUS.
3/[etropoIis--Wuisance-- Combined System ~f .Drainage sanctioned 3y Vestry-- Unaulhorised Addition or'Rain-Water Pi~e--" D r a i n " or " S e w e r " - Melropolis Management Act, x855 ( i 8 and x 9 Vigl., c. I2O), s. 250. .4 drain f o r the drainage of four houses by a combined o2Oeration was constructed under the order <~ a veslry. .4 ~i~e which carried olfrain waterfront the roof of a fifth house was, without the sa~lc/ion of the vesgry, turned into and connected with this drain. Jge/d, that the rain water ~i~e re,as a drain within section 25o o f the 3~elro2OoNs A(anagemenl Act, 1855 , and that its unauthomsed connection with the drain belonging to the four houses con. verted the latter from the ~oint of junction and onwards into a sewer. T h e plaintiff was the owner of a c o m m o n lodgmghouse, I8A, Dyssel Street, H a c k n e y . T h e plaintiff claimed damages by reason of the defendant having wrongfully created a nuisance by permitting sewage matter to percolate through the soil into the plaintiff's premises, whereby the plaintiff suffered damage in his business. T h e defendant was the owner of four houses, Nos. 2% 22, 24, a n d a6, Dyssel Street which adjoined the plaintiff's premises. T h e defendant purchased the lease of these houses in October, 1895. T h e defendant's houses were built in x884, a n d were all d r a i n e d into a drain which ran u n d e r the land on which the premises now occupied by the plaintiff were subsequently built. A t the time the drain was constructed the l a n d on which No. 18A was afterwards built belonged to the same owner as Nos. 20 to 26. T h e drain was constructed u n d e r an order of the vestry authorising the drainage of the four houses, Nos. 2o to 26, into one drain. T h e nuisance was alleged to arise from the
306
LAW
REPORTS.
defective condition of that part of the drain of Nos. 20 to z6 which was under the plaintiff's premises. It appeared that a pipe which carried the rain water from the roof of the plaintiff's premises had been connected with the defendant's drain. There was no evidence to show when or by whom this rain-water pipe was connected with the defendant's drain, but the builder who made the defendant's drain, and who also built the plaintiff's premises, denied having made the connection. Evidence was called for the defence to show that the nuisance, if any, was caused by the defective condition of the plaintiff's rain-water pipe and by the faulty manner in which it had been connected with the defendant's drain. The defendant contended that his drain had become a sewer by reason of the connection, and that the vestry and not the defendant were liable if it was out of repair. F. O. Robinson (with him I-Z. A. Porman) for the defendant.--The defendant's drain in the first instance was lawfully made to drain more than one house, but it now drains another house, No. I8A, without any order from the vestry. I t does not come within the definition of " d r a i n " in section 250 of the Act of x855, and is a sewer. Although the plaintiff's pipe only carries off rain water, it is nevertheless primd facie a drain within the Act, and, being a drain, its unauthorised connection with the defendant's drain makes the latter at the point of junction and onward a sewer. Afacashie, for the plaintiff.--The cases cited do not apply, for in them there were drains draining more than one house without any order of the vestry. In this case the drain carries off the drainage of more than one house under an order of the vestry. The case therefore comes within the latter part of the definition of " d r a i n " in section 25% and the mere addition to it of a drain from another house does not make it a sewer. Secondly, a rain-water pipe is not a drain at all within the Act. Bruce, jr.--This is an action for damages for an alleged nuisance, occasioned by sewage, to the plaintiË"s premises. The plaintiff occupies a lodging house; the defendant is the owner of four houses drained by a drain consisting of a six-inch pipe, which passes under the plaintiff's house. It has been proved that this drain was made in accordance with plans which were submitted to and approved by the vestry. I was asked by counsel for the defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case to hold that this drain was a sewer within the definition in section 250 of the Act of x855. I inclined to the opinion at that time that it was a drain and not a sewer, and I therefore determined to hear the evidence for the defence. Upon t h e evidence I am of opinion that the plaintiff's drain was defective, but I do not think that the escape of sewage from the defendant's drain was of sufficient volume to cause any
appreciable damage. I think, however, that on the authority of f-Zumphreys v. Cousins (I877. 46 L.J.C.P. 438 ; u C.P.D. 239) there is a technical cause of action, in respect of 'which tt/e plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages. As to the question whether the defendant's drain at the point at which it received the plaintiff's rain-water pipe became a sewer, I have, upon consideration of Reg. v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, modified the view I expressed during the course of the argument. This drain, when provided by the defendant to drain his four houses, was a drain draining more than one house under a system of combined drainage sanctioned by the vestry, and consequently it was not at that time a sewer. But when the drainage of the rain-water pipe from the plaintiff's house was turned into it, it then drained five houses ; and with reference to the fifth house, there was no order for combined drainage, so that the drain did not come within the second branch of the definition of the word " d r a i n " in section 250, as I at first thought it might. When it became the drain of the fifth house, without any order of the vestry sanctioning the combined operation as regards the fifth house, it ceased to be a drain and became a sewer. I can find no authority as to whether a drain is. only a drain within section 250 , when used to carry off sewage and not water, or whether it i slequ~illy a drain when it merely carries off rain water from the roof of a house. The plaintiff's drain which joined the defendant's only carried off rain water. There is authority for saying that a p!pe which only carries off surface water from a fieldis not a drain within the Act ; but in my opinion, whether it carries off rain water or sewage f r o m a building, it isstill a drain for drainage of a building within section z5o ; and as soon as the drain of the fifth house was joined on to that which drained the other four, the drain from that point onwards became a sewer. I do not think this affects my decision as to the plaintiff's right to nominal damages, because, according to Humdbkreys v. Cousins, the defendant was not entitled to turn his sewage on the plaintiff's premises. I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for one farthing. [The judge directed that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for one farthing, and further directed that the defendant do have the costs of the action, except such as may have been incurred solely on the point as to which the plaintiff has recovered nominal damages, namely the issues as to the flowing of sewage on the plaintiff's land.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.--MAY 6th, x897. DERBYSHm~ (appellant) v. HOULISTOr~ (respondent).
AdulteratTon-- Written Warranty--Nature, Substance, and Quality of Article demanded--
LAW REPORTS.
Scienter--Sale of ~ood and Drugs Act, x875 (38 and 39 Vict., c. 63), s. 27. Case stated by the Stipendiary Magistrate for the City of Manchester. The appellant was summoned under section 27 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, *875, upon the information of the respondent (an inspector of nuisances for the City of Manchester) for giving on September 8, x896 , a false warranty in writing to a purchaser, to wit, Martin Hopkins, in respect to an article of food, to wit, butter, then sold by him to the said Hopkins, and subsequently, to wit, on September ,6th, ~896 , sold by Hopkins to the respondent, the said article not being of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the respondent. By section ~7 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, r875, it is provided that "Every person who shall give a false warranty in writing to any purchaser in respect of an article of food or drug sold by him as principal or agent, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and be liable to a penalty not exceeding Twenty pounds." On September i6tb, ,896, the respondent purchased at the shop of Hopkins a pound of butter, marked, "pure butter xod." The butter was adulterated, containing 33 per cent. of water. Hopkins had, on September 8th, I896, purchased the butter from the appellant as being the same in nature, substance, and quality as that demanded of him by the respondent, and with a written warranty to that effect. The written warranty contained the words, "warranted pure butter." Hopkins had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was otherwise, and he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it. The appellant purchased the butter on August zznd, ~896 , from one Maloney, is the same in nature, substance, and quality as that so sold by the appellant to Hopkins, and with a written warranty to that effect, and the appellant had no reason to believe at the time he sold it to Hopkins that the article was otherwise, and the appellant sold it in the same state as when he purchased it. The written warranty received from Maloney by the appellant contained the words, "Guaranteed pure Irish butter." The magistrate being of opinion that it was not necessary to prove that the appellant at the time when he gave the warranty to Hopkins knew that it was false, convicted him. C. A. Russell, Q.C. (.F. gar. ~rellor with him) for the appellant, contended that guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant in giving the warranty to Hopkins must be shown. Lawson Walton, Q.C. (ReginaM Brown with him) for the respondent. The Court (Hawkins,~, and V:r:gM, J.) held that guilty knowledge must be shown, and quashed the conviction. Conviction quashed.
307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.--QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.--MAY7TH, 1897. (Before MR. JUSTICE H.~,WKINS and MR. JUSTICE
WRIGHT.) 7.).TAPLIN.
HOUGHTON
THIS was a case stated by justices of Richmond upon dismissing a summons under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Mr. A. Glen appeared for the appellant; and Mr.. Lawless for the respondent. An information was laid against the respondent charging him with selling to the prejudice of the appellant a drug, to wit, arsenical soap, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded, contrary to section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. The appellant asked for arsenical soap, and he was supplied by the respondent with a tablet of Dr. Mackenzie's arsenical toilet soap. The soap contained no arsenic. The magistrates dismissed the information, holding that though arsenical soap was a drug within the meaning of the Act, yet as the soap in question contained no arsenic it was not a drug and no offence had been committed. Mr. Glen contended that the subject of the sale was a drug, though it was proved that there were no medicinal properties in the article delivered. Mr. Justice Wright : Was not the article demanded a compounded drug and within the third exception in section 6 ? Mr. Glen: It was a compounded article, but not a compounded drug. The Court dismissed the appeal. Mr. Justice Hawkins on the ground that the soap was not a drug, and Mr. Justice Wright on the ground that the soap was a compounded drug within the meaning of subsection 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.--QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.--MAY X*TH, I897. (Before ~V[R. JUSTICE HAWKINS and MR. JUSTICE WRIGHT.) FIRTH V. STAINES.
This was a special case stated by a metropolitan magistrate. The appellant was the sanitary inspector in the employment of the vestry of the parish of St. Leonard, Shorediteh, which is a parish included in schedule A of the Metropolis Management Act, I855. The vestry, which was the sanitary authority for the parish, had under section 58 of the Act of 1855 appointed a committee, known as the Public Health Committee, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of various sanitary Acts of Parliament. The question in this case was as to the meaning of section 58 , which empowers the local bodies named therein to appoint committees for any purposes which, in the discretion of the local body, would be better regulated and
308
A N A L Y T I C A L NOTES.
managed by means of a committee, "provided always that the acts of every such committee should be submitted to the general body of the board or vestry appointing such committee for their approval:' A report having been made to the committee of the existence of a nuisance on the respondent's premises, the committee by resolution authorised the appellant to serve a notice on the respondent under section 85 of the Act requiring him to abate the nuisance. This was done, and the respondent having disregarded the notice, a summons was issued against him. The approval by the vestry of the proceedings was not obtained untll after the issue of the summons, and the magistrate held that, as the resolution of the committee had not been submitted to the vestry for their approval before the service of the notice, the notice was invalid, and he dismissed the summons. Mr. Cripps, Q,C., and Mr: R. C. Glen appeared for the appellent ; Mr. R. D. Muir for the respondent. The Court allowed the appeal. • Mr. Justice Hawkins said that in his opinion the decision of t h e magistrate was wrong. The case turned on section 58 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 , which gave to the vestry the power of appointing the committee. It was clear when section 58 was looked at in connexion with sections 83 to 85, which dealt with the abatement of nuisances, the committee had the same power in those matters as the vestry, subject to the approval of the " acts" of the committee by the vestry. It was said that in this case the vestry should have judicially considered the matter and given their approval before the issue of the notice. He could not help thinking that if a committee was appointed to do acts which in the judgment of the vestry could be better done by a committee than by the vestry, then the term "approval" was used advisedly as meaning that, although the committee could do the acts in question, they could not justify themselves unless at some time or other the approva! of the vestry was obtained. Otherwise the result would be that the approval of the vestry must be obtained prior to each step in the proceedings, and if that was so there might just as well be no committee at all. Moreover, if the committee could do no act without the approval of the vestry, then there could be no act done by the committee of which the vestry could approve. Mr. Justice Wright delivered judgment to the same effect. A SPECIAL Meeting of the British Institute of Public Health is announced to be held at the Guildhall, London, on June i6th, when an address of congratulation to Her Majesty on the completion of the sixtieth year of her reign will be proposed and Prof. von Pettenkofer presented with the Harben Medal.
A N A L Y T I C A L NOTES.
Zhe Estimation of Starch in Sausages. ]. Mayrlmfer. (Forsch. Ber. ;, through Zeit-Nahr. Unters., Vienna, x896, x., 331, 33z).--The method hitherto employed for the estimation of meal and other starch-containing substances in sausages has been the inversion of the starch present and determination of the sugar produced. Since this, in the author's opinion, is too tedious, and often unsatisfactory, he brings forward in its place the following simple process :--The substance under examination is heated on the water-bath with alcoholic potash (about 8 per cent.), which, in the case of pure sausages, dissolves ahnost everything except a little cellulose. The solution is diluted with warm alcohol, to prevent gelatinization, and filtered through a paper or asbestos filter. The insoluble residue, containing the starch when present, is washed with alcohol until the washings are no longer alkaline, then treated with aqueous potash, and the starch solution made up to a definite volume. On adding alcohol to an aliquot portion, the starch falls as a floceulent precipitate, which rapidly subsides. This is collected on a weighed filter, washed with alcohol and ether, dried and weighed. In order to avoid a determination of the ash, it is advisable to make the starch precipitation from a weak acetic acid solution instead of from an alkaline solution, since the acetate formed from the potassium carbonate in the starch is really soluble in alcohol. By this means the starch isobtained quite free from ash. From 6o to 80 grammes of the sausage should be taken for the determination, since the starch is usually not regularly distributed throughout the nlass.
Tubercle Bacilli in Butler.--Tubercle Bacilli may be separated from butter by melting five grams of butter at 5o° in a test tube, shaking thoroughly with warm water, closing the tube with an india-rubber cork, allowing to stand upside down. After cooling the bacilli will be found in the water. Nitrates in Water.uA few c.c. of the sample are evaporated to dryness, and six drops of a saturated solution of phenol in hydrochloric acid are at once added. Sometimes it is advisable to slightly warm the reagents. I f nitrates are present, a reddish-violet-colouration is obtained, which on adding ammonia changes to emerald green. Examination qf Pe~ers. F. J3aur and A. Jffilger (Forschungsber-Lebensmittel, etc., 1896 , iii., 113, through Chem. Zeit. Rep., 1896, IS6. ) The best method for testing the purity of pepper depends on the estimation of the piperine, either in the form of piperic acid or by titration as