invoice describing milk as 'new and pure milk' is of no use, but the words 'warranted new and pure milk' would be sufficient protection against a prosecution under the sale of food and drugs act.

"In the case of a running contract where milk, for instance, is to be supplied for six months by daily deliveries, it is not sufficient for the contractor to warrant the milk pure, but there must be an invoice or label delivered with each particular parcel so describing it as to bring it under the contract and to show it is a delivery under it. Thus, where a running contract warranted the quality of the milk as the best milk, and a label was affixed to each churn (can) delivered, describing it as genuine new milk with all the cream on, it was held that the label and contract together formed a good warranty of the specific article delivered."

In the case of Payne vs. Hack, it was held that if the vendor demands evidence of the authority of the person professing to be a public officer, and if the latter has no badge or other mark to denote his authority, and is unknown to the vendor, the officer is bound to produce the authority under which he acts. The production of his appointment or a certificate from the clerk of the local authority is sufficient.

If however, the inspector is in uniform, or has other marks showing him to be a public officer, the vendor must be deemed to know that he is acting in such capacity, as his uniform is prima facie evidence of the fact. If the vendor makes no inquiry of the purchaser as to what authority he acts under, he will also be taken to know that he was a public officer.

Blyth states that "in the case of a grocer who sold adulterated coffee, the vendor had received the money, and had laid the packet and also the change on the counter, but on hearing the errand of the purchaser, he laid his hand on the change and the packet, declaring the sale was not complete, as he had not given the change and also that he did not sell the goods as not adulterated. But the magistrate very properly held that the defense was not admissible."

In another case mentioned by a standard legal authority, it is stated that "a seller of milk had a van (wagon) on which the notice was placed 'country skimmed milk, sold as adulterated milk.' The man, with his can, went on foot from door to door, the van being in the road. It is evident that, in such a case, very few of the customers could have seen the label. An inspector who bought a sample of the milk did not see it and the magistrate convicted the defendant."

Robinson & Cribb rule that "a master is expressly liable under this section for ordering or permitting a servant to mix injurious ingredients with food, and where a servant gains nothing by adulterating an article and the master reaps the profit, a strong presumption is raised that the master permitted the act of his servant. The master is responsible for the act of his servant in selling an article under this section unless he can prove ignorance under section five, or that he

could not by reasonable diligence have obtained the knowledge. If, however, he has neglected to exercise a reasonable supervision over his servants, this would no doubt constitute want of reasonable diligence."

In the case of Warnock vs. Johnson, a farmer had been convicted by the officer of selling butter-milk containing 30 per cent. of water. It was proved that the addition of some water was necessary, the quantity depending upon the temperature. The analyst put it at 20 per cent., while trade witnesses proved it varied from 25 to 50 per cent. The High Court of Justiciary of Scotland held the case came under the exemption clause of the section, as the water was not proven to have been added with intent to cheat the public or to prejudice the purchaser. Lord Young said: "I am disposed to agree that the statute does not apply to a greater or less quantity of extraneous matter being used in the manufacture of the article; the skill in manufacture consists in determining the quantity of ingredients to be used in the operation."

BUTTER-FAT IN CHEESE.

It has been claimed that, even under as nearly as possible the same circumstances and surroundings, the cheese manufactured by the same factory during different days would vary somewhat. Ten samples of cheese made upon ten consecutive days, at the factory of Hon. J. B. Phelps, of Conneautville, Crawford county, Pa., were taken carefully by sections, and sent to the chemist of the Department without instructions. So far as possible, the feed of the cows, the mode of manufacture, and all surroundings were identically the same. The results as returned by Prof. Aschman, including dates, were as follows:

It is a well-known fact that with precisely the same milk, the cheese may, and usually will, vary slightly; during some days the milk will "work up" better than others. Too great pressure at the commencement may force some of the butter fat out with the first running of whey, and other causes, some of which are not within the control of the manufacturer, will also cause more or less variation.

It was stated that samples taken from different portions of the same cheese would show variations in the amount of butter fat of sufficient importance to convict honest manufacturers and dealers; to test the validity of the point, a sample plug was taken entirely through a large Ohio full cream cheese and, excluding the rind on both sides, the plug was divided into five equal sized samples, which were lettered or marked A, B, C, D and E. The results of the test made by Prof. Aschman were as follows:

An analyses of the whole piece, after careful mixing, was 34.72 of butter fat.

In another test, samples, eight in number, were taken from different parts of a 40-pound full cream cheese and lettered A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. The results of their analyses were as follows:

The rind which, in all cases was discarded in selecting the trial samples, gave 40.34 of butter fat.

A large plug taken clear across a large full cream cheese and divided in the cross section into four samples, the rind being discarded, gave the following results. Samples A and C were nearest the centre and B and D nearest the rind or outside:

In another series of analyses by Prof. Cochran, the results were as follows:

The statement was made by dealers that the standard for a full cream cheese was, by provisions of the act, fixed so high (32 per cent. of butter fat) that it was out of the question to reach it. Profs. Aschman, Frear and Cochran were each directed to obtain 100 samples of cheese in their respective localities and carefully test them; their reports demonstrated, what was in reality known before, that the State standard of 32 per cent. of butter fat was low and in favor of the cheese manufacturers.

Various questions relating more particularly to the interest of the factory owner in the manufacture of the product, which were not tested by the Department, were considered and the following conclusions by Dr. H. H. Dean, reached only after repeated experiments, were accepted as substantially correct for this State as well as Canada:

"1. Whole milk is not valuable for cheese making in proportion to its weight of volume, as 100 lbs. of 3 per cent. milk will make about 11⁄2 lbs. less cheese than 100 lbs. of 4 per cent. milk.

"2. Whole milk does not produce cheese exactly in proportion to the butter fat contained in it, as 1 lb. of fat in milk testing an average of 3.23 per cent. produced 2.78 lbs. of cured cheese, while 1 lb. of fat in milk testing an average of 4.2 per cent. produced an average of 2.52 lbs. of cured cheese.

"3. The yield of cheese is fairly uniform in proportion to the fat and casein contained in the milk, when the latter is represented by adding 2 to the percentage of fat. This method gives results slightly lower than the actual yield of cheese, for milk testing under 3.25 per cent. of fat, and slightly above the actual yield for milks testing over this percentage of fat.

"4. Percentage of fat in the whey was greater from rich milk than from poor milk, but the loss of fat per 100 lbs. of cheese made did not differ materially until milk with over 4.50 per cent. of fat was used.

"5. The relation of the fat of the milk to the quality of the cheese produced is the most difficult point of all to settle, as there is so much difference of opinion as to what constitutes 'quality' in a cheese. It is difficult to get two judges to agree as to the number of points which cheese should be scored; and there does not seem to be a very definite relation between points scored and the market or money value. A cheese that would bring top price in one market might not do so in an

other. At present there is not enough discrimination made in cheese sold on the markets. All our cheese made at the College were sold for the same price each month.

"6. The cheese made from poor milk had a tendency to become harsh in texture, which may be partially remedied by using less salt and leaving more moisture in the cheese. Rich milk has a tendency to produce cheese somewhat 'pasty' and 'slippery' in character, which may be partially remedied by the use of extra salt and by cooking one or two degrees higher than usual. The flavor, closeness, even color, and texture of a cheese are somewhat dependent upon the fat present in the milk and retained in the cheese, but with normal milk there are a number of factors equally important in the manufacture and sale of Cheddar cheese. Among these are, (1) what may be called good physical qualities in the milk, such as smell and taste; (2) skillful making; (3) differences in the tastes of judges and consumers.

"7. The percentage of fat in milk, plus 2, is a fair basis upon which to distribute the proceeds among patrons of cheese factories."

IGNORANCE OF ADULTERATIONS.

In a number of prosecutions brought by the Department for offering or selling adulterated goods, the dealers claimed exemption from punishment upon the plea that they were not aware of the adulteration. In such cases, where the evidence is such as to lead up to a belief that the plea is an honest one the Department uses the retailer as a witness against those from whom he purchased the adulterated goods, and releases him.

In England the construction of the law is such as will not release the retailer, and it is made his duty to know, by guarantee or other means, that the articles sold are as represented. This is usually done by a guarantee from the wholesale dealer, and the officers of the Department have in all cases advised this course to all retailers, and it has been very generally adopted. In many places associations of retailers have been formed, and the character of all goods purchased by members of the association closely scrutinized, in many cases to the extent of an analysis.

In referring to the effect of ignorance upon the part of the retailer, Robinson & Cribb write thus:

"In prosecutions under this section, it is no defence to prove ignorance of the seller as to the adulteration. This is an exception in the interests of the public health to the general maxim of law that