The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-19 00:00:00

THE- EXPRESS,

it appeared that the plaintiff fg a mall shopkeeper, car.
ryang on busies.. in Orchard-street, Westminster, and
liniongat other articles he sold ginger beer, which was sup-
plied to huu by the defendant, whn is a ginger beer, manu-
facturer, cairying on business at Kingsland. In June last
the plaintiff's wife, in order to assuage her thirst, took a
bottle of ginger beer and drank sonic of it from the bottle.
It produced a burning sensation in her throat, and in order
to allay it she took an emetic, but finding no relief from it
she was taken to the Westminster Hospital. The medi-
cine administered to her did not relieve her, and she
went again the following morning to the hospital,
when the medicine which was given to her had
the desired effect in relieving her from pain, but she felt
so weak that she had to go to bed. Plaintiff's wife having
detailed those facts, added that she had been reduced one
half in size since she drank the mixture ; her strength
had diminished, and she was now unable to attend to her
business. She bad since given up the ginger-beer branch
of her trade.

In croas.examination plaintiff's wife said her husband
broke the bottle, and there was found to be some putrid
matter in it ; the smell was so bad that it nearly killed her.
The plaintiff was called. lie stated that when he broke
the bottle, the abominable smell completely " knocked
him over." (Laughter.).

In croas-ex.atuirltion'he stated that he wrapped the
bottle in paper, and afterwards took it to the hospital. In
consequence of his wife's screams so large a mob collected
round his house that he was obliged to close his shop.
Mr. Oxley, house surgeon of Westminster Hospital,
stated that he attended to the plaintiff's wife when she
1,10.11 brought there: be prescribed for her. He examined
the bottle, and found that it had contained candle grease
and burnt Inciter matches. It would be likely to pro-
due.) sickness, but not to cause pain.
On the part of the defendant it was contended that the
plaintiff and his wife bad greatly exaggerated the case,
and further that the wife's illness did not arise from drink-
ing the ginger beer. The defendant's carman was called,
and stated that be frequently found that many of the
plaintiff's returned bottles had been used as candlesticks.
Rogers, one of the defendant's foremen, said he had seen
other makers' cards in the plaintiff's shop window, and
had received other makers' bottles from him. Bottles
sometimes came back with grease in them • the bottles
were well washed in hot water, and afterwards put in a
rack to drain. _

Mr. Joyce—How do you make your ginger-beer
Witness—Water. (Laughter.)
Mr. Joyce—And eo is London milk. (Laughter.)
Witness— Well ; water, sugar, and acid.
Mr. Justice ghee--And no ginger?
Witness-oh, yes ; of course. (Laughter.)
Mr. Pearce—Have you anybody here who bottled and
corked in June and July last.
Witness—Yes. We have a bottle-washer and a corker.
(Laughter.)
One of the fillers was called, and he stated that when
anythinz nasty was found in the bottles they were put
back and broken.

Cross-examined—We have found grease and pieces of
cork in the bottles, but nothing else.
The defendant was called, but he refused to answer
whether other persons bad complained of being poisoned
by drinking his ginger beer ; it had nothing to do with
the cane. He did not pay M. in August last. He heard
about six weeks since that complaint had been made to
one of his customers, named Hales, that he had sold ginger
beet to a lady which injured her. He paid no compensa-
tion. He never heard in August, Itil 6 (if it was in the
newspapers), that a woman had been poisoned by drinking
his ..Luger beer.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 5/.