buying the article as butter, and a certificate from Dr. Yeld, the borough analyst, stated that it was adulterated to the extent named. Mr. Marshall said he had an objection to the summons to raise. The alleged offence was committed at noon on the 30th June, and the summons was not served until the evening of the 28th July. He contended that as more than 28 days, allowed by law, had elapsed, the summons must break down. Mr. Bowey, in reply, said if the summons had not been served within 28 days, as regarded the hours, it had been legally served as regarding the days themselves. The Bench overruled the objection. Mr. Marshall said his defence to the charge was that the defendant's son, a little boy, who had perhaps somewhat carelessly been left in charge of the stall, had inadvertently sold butterine for butter, and even though an offence might thus have been committed, he asked the Bench to deal leniently with the defendant. The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant 5s. and costs, a distress warrant to be issued in default.

A Mistaken Applicant :

A poor woman came before the magistrate at the Lambeth Police Court and stated that she purchased some flour at a shop in order to have it analysed, as she had had some from the same place which she thought was adulterated. By the direction of Mr. Long, the inspector to the Newington Vestry, she took the flour to him, and he forwarded it to Dr. Muter, the analyst. She was afterwards given a printed certificate, and called upon, much to her surprise, to pay 10s. 6d. for it. The certificate stated that the flour had been received from Mr. Long for the purpose of being analysed. She was a poor woman, and thought it very hard she should have to pay.-Mr. Ellison said he had no power to interfere, but would, however, direct Sergeant Underwood to see the vestry clerk of Newington upon the matter.

In reference to above, Mr. Long, the sanitary inspector of St. Mary, Newington, afterwards appeared before the court. He said the woman had stated that she purchased some flour, believing it to be adulterated, and by the advice of Mr. Long had it examined by the Public Analyst, and that afterwards she was called upon to pay 10s. 6d., the fee of the analyst. Mr. Long, in explanation, informed Mr. Ellison, the Magistrate, that the woman was distinctly told by him that she would have to bear the cost of the analysis, and she expressed her willingness to do so he therefore forwarded the sample to the Public Analyst. Mr. Ellison said he had informed the applicant he had no power to interfere, and after the explanation of Mr. Long, there was an end of the matter. Mr. Long hoped the same publicity Would be given to the explanation as to the application.

Quinine Wine.-What is a Wine Glass?

George Trenchard Cox, grocer, of 1 and 2, Thayer Street, Manchester Square, appeared in answer to a summons taken out against him by the Marylebone Vestry through George Windle, inspector of nuisances, for selling a bottle of quinine wine not containing, as stated on the bottle, "one grain of sulphate of quinine in each wine-glassful." The analyst for Marylebone, Dr. Wynter Blyth, gave a certificate that in his opinion the wine contained three-fifths of a grain instead of a grain of sulphate of quinine in every two ounces. For the defence, it was urged that quinine wine was not a drug, but a beverage, and a license was required for its sale. The wine-glass, too, referred to was not such a one as was used in a chemist's laboratory, but such as was in common use. Dr. Attwell was called, and said he had tried the capacity of a large number of glasses, and found them to be from 23 ounces to 3 ounces. The average of 20 glasses was 3 ounces. They were sherry glasses, and port glasses held 3 ounces. This quinine contained one grain of sulphate of quinine in each wine-glassful. Mr. De Rutzen said the whole question to be decided was, What was a wine-glass? Was it one used as a chemical measure or one in ordinary use? The analysts agreed that if it were the one in ordinary use there was a grain in it. Under the circumstances, he should dismiss the summons.

The Sale of Lime-water.-RICHARDS v. MANFUll:

At the Guildhall, Nottingham, on August 3, Horatio John Manfull, of 88, Arkwright Street, Nottingham, chemist, was charged before Mr. Blain (in the chair) and Mr. F. W. Parsons that he did, on June 29 last, at Arkwright Street, Nottingham, unlawfully sell to one William Richards, chief inspector of nuisances, a certain drug, to wit, one pint of lime-water, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the drug or article demanded by the said William Richards. Mr. S. G. Johnson, town clerk, prosecuted on behalf of the Corporation, and Mr. Henry Glaisyer, solicitor, of Birmingham, represented the defendant. In opening the case, Mr. Johnson said there were three summonses returnable on that day against three chemists in the town for selling lime-water contrary to the 6th section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. He understood that two of them were not represented by professional men, but

that the third was represented by his friend Mr. Glaisyer, therefore, with the permission of the Bench, he would take Mr. Manfull's case first. He might tell the Bench that they had recently had a great deal of infantile diarrhoea in the town, and the attention of Mr. Seaton, the medical officer of health, had been called to the matter. In that town there were, as the bench would be aware, a number of women who went out to work during the day, leaving their children at home in the care of others. Lime-water was frequently used mixed with milk for dietetic purposes for such children, and it was of course of the utmost importance that the lime-water so used, and also that the lime-water ordered by medical men in prescriptions, should be of the best quality and of full strength, otherwise the health of the district must suffer, as the preparation in question was continually prescribed for diarrhoea, more particularly for children. Mr. Manfull being asked for a pint of lime-water, he was bound to supply a preparation known to the medical profession by that name, that of the Pharmacopoeia, that being the only preparation a person going to a chemist's shop and asking for lime-water would expect to receive. Mr. Manfull had not been dealt with exceptionally in this matter. Twelve chemists' shops were visited by the inspector on the day the purchase of the drug in question was made from the defendant, and twelve samples of lime-water were taken, nine of which were of the required strength. The required strength, as he understood it, was distilled water thoroughly saturated with lime. Having read the 6th section of the Act, Mr. Johnson proceeded to say that it must stand to common sense that if a person went into a chemist's shop and asked for a drug he expected to get a drug of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded, and if that person asked for lime-water he would expect to get limewater of the full strength, namely distilled water saturated with lime. If he did not get a preparation of that strength he did not get lime-water, but simply lime and water. He did not get the article he demanded, and he was prejudiced accordingly. In this particular case the Public Analyst had certified that the drug sold by the defendant was not lime-water, but lime and water, and did not contain more than about half the lime it should contain if of full strength, so that a medical man would be misled to the extent of half the lime in a prescription dispensed with the lime-water sold by the defendant. He should contend this point very strongly, because if it was contended for the defence that there was lime in the water sold, and that, consequently, the preparation sold was lime-water, he should call witnesses to show that there was a preparation known among chemists by that name, for which there was a wellrecognised form of manufacture, which would produce a preparation of known strength, and that when a person asked for lime-water that preparation and no other should be sold, and that a person had a perfect right to expect to get that article, and was prejudiced if he did not get it of full strength. The matter was one of considerable public importance, and one which concerned the health of the whole district. He should call the medical officer of health, he should put in the analyst's certificate, and he should call the sanitary inspector and others. Mr. Glaisyer said, that with regard to the case in which he was instructed, he did not think there would be any necessity for his friend to go into the particulars of the case as sketched out, as he was prepared to acknowledge that the lime-water sold by the defendant did not contain the full proportion of lime, and he should only ask permission to address the Bench, and plead extenuating circumstances. Mr. Johnson said under the circumstances named by his friend, he did not think it necessary to go more fully into the merits of the case; he did not wish at all to make out a special case against Mr. Manfull. Mr. Glaisyer said the defendant, Mr. Manfull, had been in business in the town for eleven years, during which time he had carried on business in Arkwright Street, and that no charge of a similar nature to that they were now considering had ever been brought against him before with regard to the sale of any of his drugs. The inspector went to his shop and asked for lime-water, and he was supplied, as his friend opposite had told them, with an article which contained lime, but not lime in sufficient quantity to be that known to the medical profession and technically called lime-water. Now lime-water was made according to certain directions in the British Pharmacopoeia, which ordered a certain quantity of lime to be put into a stoppered bottle containing a certain quantity of distilled water, and the ingredients to be shaken well for two or three minutes. "After 12 hours the excess of lime will have subsided, and the clear solution may be drawn off with a syphon as it is required for use, or transferred to a green glass bottle furnished with a well-ground stopper." He was told that each of these directions, the stoppered bottle, the shaking, the 12 hours' standing, the green glass bottle with the well-ground stopper, were all essential to the production of the proper article. Exposure to the air when shaken in a closed bottle would cause the lime which was in solution to be thrown down as a precipitate in the form of carbonate of lime, which would fall to the bottom of the vessel; and thus, of course, lessen the quantity of lime in the solution; therefore, even supposing the water were in the first instance saturated with lime, after exposure to the air a certain quantity of lime would be thrown out in the form of carbonate of lime. This would necessarily lessen

It

the quantity of lime contained in solution in the fluid. The shaking which the British Pharmacopoeia directed was necessary in order to extend or separate the particles of slaked lime, and thus allow free access of the water to every particle, in order that it might take up the required quantity of lime to form a solution of the proper strength. The 12 hours' standing was also necessary for the same purpose. was not a case where the law had been wilfully infringed or any attempt made to fraudulently adulterate a drug for the sake of gain, the total price of this article being only a few pence, nor was it a case in which a tradesman had wilfully and fraudulently sold an inferior preparation with greater profit; it was simply an instance where sufficient care had not been exercised in attending to the uttermost letter of directions contained in the British Pharmacopoeia. With these remarks he would leave the matter in the hands of the Bench, submitting that, under the circumstances, a nominal fine would meet the justice of the case. Mr. Parsons said that although to the chemist the quantity of lime contained in lime-water might not make a pennyworth of difference, as regards the health of a large and populous town containing upwards of 200,000 inhabitants it was a most serious matter. Mr. Blain said: The Bench think this a very important question. The public must be protected, and, as this is the first offence, Mr. Manfull will have to pay £5.

George Powell, chemist, St. Ann's Well Rd., was charged with a similar offence. The Town Clerk said this was a case which was on all fours with the last. The defendant pleaded guilty, and was also fined £5. Mr. J. T. Rayson, chemist, 273, Great Alfred Street, was also summoned for selling lime-water which was not of sufficient strength. Defendant said he had only had the shop a month, and his predecessor guaranteed that the lime-water was right. It was really no neglect on his part. Dr. Seaton, in answer to the Bench, said the lime-water ought to have been made since then, but if it had been put in a stoppered bottle there was no reason why it should not keep good for an even longer time. Defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of £5.

TRICHINOSIS DUE TO EATING FLESH OF A WILD BOAR.

We condense the following account by Dr. John Wortabet, of St. John's Hospital at Beyrout, of an outbreak of trichinosis in Palestine, from the London Lancet:

A wild boar was killed in the jungle near the village of Khiam, last November, and the meat, half cooked, or raw, was eaten by the villagers. During the second week afterward, the persons who had eaten, became ill, and if any escaped at that date they suffered later; but of those who had abstained not one fell ill. The symptoms of the disease were the same in all the victims; but those who ate the flesh raw suffered most severely, and the children generally suffered less than adults. The head of the boar was sent as a present to a family some miles north of Khiam, who boiled it very thoroughly before eating it, and though a good number joined in the repast no one of them suffered in the least. Dr. Wortabet visited the village on January 1 and 2, and found 257 persons more or less ill,—namely, men 121, women 101, children 35. Five others-three men and two women-had died before his arrival. The period of incubation does not seem to have ever been under ten days, though it was prolonged in some cases to twenty. In one individual, who had eaten the meat fairly cooked, the disease did not appear before the end of the fourth week, and then it was so slight that he was not laid up by it. They were unanimous in saying that up to the date of the actual invasion of the disease, they felt as well as usual. He heard, however, of one man who had vomiting and diarrhoea soon after eating, probably the effect of an overloaded stomach, and that he was one of those who had suffered the least. The instances in which the disease appeared later than the second week were very few. Some ten years ago there was a similar outbreak from the same cause in a village a few miles to the east, when about twenty persons lost their lives. He was told, also, that the wild boar lives chiefly on the roots of the canes which are abundant in the marshes, and as he burrows the ground with his snout he snaps up small animals, such as worms, snakes, and wild rats-the latter of which are said to be sometimes infested with trichina spiralis. A somewhat aged woman, whom he had seen quite ill when he was there, died afterward, and he succeeded in obtaining a piece of muscle (biceps brachialis), which reveals under the microscope a good number of trichinæ, and sets at rest any question as to the nature of the disease.

The editor of the Lancet adds this note on the results of a microscopic examination of the muscle:

66

We received from Dr. W. a specimen of the muscle referred to in the postcript, and on microscopical examination found it to contain a large number of non-encysted embryo næmatoids. The isolated worms possessed the general shape, with terminal anus, met with in the embryos of trichinæ spiralis. They were too immature to admit of any details of organization being made out. They were found to be inch long by inch broad. The fact that they were non-encysted is in accordance with the other fact that they had not yet attained the usual size of encysted trichinæ."

J. COMYNS LEACH, M.D., B.Sc., F.C.S., has been appointed Analyst for the Borough of Shaftesbury.

THE State of New Jersey has just passed an Act to prevent the Sale of Adulterated Food and Drugs, which, as well as the Act of the State of New York, contain the definition of adulterated articles as set out in the essay which obtained the prize offered by the National Board of Health already reprinted in this Journal.

WE have received a copy of Messrs. Townson & Mercer's new catalogue. It is well illustrated, carefully sorted, and extremely complete. We think every analyst will find it advantageous to keep a copy of it for reference. Whether he uses it for purchasing by or not, he will certainly have a handy book at his side.

RECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS.

The following specifications have been recently published, and can be obtained from the Great Seal Office, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, London.

The Chemist and Druggist; The Brewers' Guardian; The British Medical Journal; The Medical Press; The Pharmaceutical Journal; The Sanitary Record; The Miller; Journal of Applied Science; The Boston Journal of Chemistry; The Provisioner; The Practitioner; New Remedies; Proceedings of the American Chemical Society; Le Practicien; The Inventors' Record; New York Public Health ; The Scientific American; Society of Arts Journal; Sanitary Engineer of New York; The Cowkeeper and Dairyman's Journal; The Chemists' Journal; Oil and Drug News; The Textile Record of America; Sugar Cane; Country Brewers' Gazette; The Medical Record; Oil and Drug Journal; Analysis of Simpler Salts, by H. A. Phillips; Report of The People v. Schrumpf, New York; Butterine, Description of its Manufacture, by W. O. Westling; The Microscope (Detroit); Water and Air, their Relations to Health and Disease, by W. H. Watson; New Commercial Plants and Drugs, by T. Christy; Report on Croton Water, by Dr. E. Waller; Report on Stench Nuisances, by New York State Board of Health; The City Record of New York.

THE ANALYST.

OCTOBER, 1881.

177

SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS.

THE COUNTRY MEETING of this Society was held on the 6th September at York, during the British Association Meeting. In the absence of the President, Dr. Wallace took the chair.

The ballot papers were opened by Mr. Jarmain and Mr. Baynes, and the following gentlemen were declared to be duly elected :-C. M. Blades, Analytical Chemist, Northwich; C. Girard, Public Analyst for Paris; C. T. Kingzett, F.C.S., F.I.C., Analytical Chemist, London.

The following gentleman was proposed for election :-W. J. R. Simpson, M.D., Aberdeen.

Mr. Allen read a paper "On the Relative Proportions of Olefines in Shale and Petroleum Products."

The Chairman, in addressing a few remarks to the meeting, congratulated the Society on the good work they had done during the past year in respect of the scheme they had published of water analysis; and while speaking of it with great eulogium, expressed a hope that the Society would continue some similar labours in a new direction. He thought it would be worth while if the Society were to consider as to some new subject to be recommended to the Council for reference to a committee, who should be requested to frame a new series of instructions which would be of assistance to Public Analysts.

It was suggested that a good subject would be the preparation of a catalogue of the re-agents, which ought to be found in the laboratory of a Public Analyst, the sources from whence they can be best procured, and if requisite the best modes of their manufacture, the tests for their purity, and methods of purification where requisite.

ON THE RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF OLEFINES IN SHALE AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

BY ALFRED A. ALLEN.

Read before the Society of Public Analysts, at York, on 6th Sept., 1881.

In a previous Paper I have shown that some of the commercial products obtained by the distillation of bituminous shale differ from the parallel series of products derived from petroleum. As far as the action of strong nitric and sulphuric acids is concerned, this difference is fully recognised by those familiar with the products in question, and has been rightly attributed to the different proportions of olefines contained in them. The method of treatment of the hydrocarbon with fuming nitric acid, fuming sulphuric acid, and caustic soda used successively, is practically a process for the estimation of the paraffins, the hydrocarbons of all other series being destroyed or converted into soluble products.

One of the best known and most characteristic properties of the olefines or hydrocarbons of the ethylene series is the readiness with which they enter into combination with