The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-03 00:00:00

briefly addressed the meeting in support of the resolution,
and expressed his cordial and long-entertained convictions in
the truth of the principle affirmed by the petition.
Mr. Baily contended, that on English principle, founded
on Biblical doctrine, capital punishment was enjoined and
necessary. (Cheers.) He declared, in a vehement
speech, that if the principle of the petition were
fully carried out, it must tend to annihilate the army, the
navy, the poice and the whole criminal legislature. The
speaker was listened to patiently for some time, but as he
proved rather lengthy and diffuse, and showed an inclination
to wander into various other subjects besides that of the
meeting, he was interrupted by hissing and cries of " sit
down," "put him out," and other interruptions, and at last
gave way and resumed his seat.
Mr. Dymond then replied on behalf of the original reso-
lution and petition, and was loudly cheered.
The amendment was put, and only two or three hands
held up in favour, the whole body of the meeting deciding
against.
The resolution and petition were then put and carried by
the same majority, all but unanimously.
A vote of thanks was then moved to Mr. Dymond by the
Rev. Mr. Robberds.
The Rev. Mr. Channing, in seconding the motion, said
that the experience of every state in America in which
capital punishment had been abolished, bore out in the
fullest manner the statements of Mr. Dymond.
Thanks were then voted to the chairman, after which
the meeting separated shortly before eleven o'clock.

ADULTERATION OF FLOUR

IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC

A case of co isiderable public importance came on for hear-
ing, yesterday, in the Police-court, before Mr. Laurence. It
was a complaint brought by the Health Committee, at the
instance of Elizabeth Mitchell, of No. 31, Portland street,
against John William Hickson, baker and flour dealer, of St.
Anne-street and Vauxhall-road, and involved a question of a
serious description. The court was much crowded during the
hearing of the case, which lasted some time. Mr. M`Gowan
appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Chilton was for the
defendant. Mr. McGowan, in opening the case, said there
were two informations laid against the defendant—one under
the 184th section of the local act of parlirmen,, which inflicted
a penalty of £2 on any one selling unwholesome food, and the
other charge was under the general act, which extended to all
England, and inflicted a penalty on any person putting into
flour, any other ingredient than genuine grain, &c. In the
present case, however, he did not seek for penalties of £lO or
£2O, but sought rather to make public a case, the result
of which he hoisted would prove a solemn warning to all
persons dealing in flour and bread, and to show them that they
could not and would not be allowed to adulterate the food of
the people without being severely punished. This was the
grand object of the enquiry, and if he succeeded in proving
such a case, as would lead the bench to conviction, he trusted
it would prove a salutary lesson to others, and show them that
they could not he allowed to adulterate food without incurring
the penalty which the law had, very properly, provided for such
a serious offence. If bakers and flour-dealers were not deterred
from adulterating flour and bread, the Health Committee
would empower its officers to make regular visits to their places
and would institute the strictest enquiry into all the materials
they used. In the present case, ho said the complaint was brought
against Willi am John Hickson, a flour-dealer and baker, who
has houses in St: Anne-street and Vauxhall-road. The com-
plainant was a respectable woman, the wife of a mariner, who
had, by his hard industry, to support herself and three children,
and he (Mr. McGowan) could not conceive anything more
cruel ion the part of a tradesman, like a baker and flour-
dealer, than to serve such people, and the public, with food of
a bad, unwholesome, and poisonous description, in return for
good money so hardly and honestly earned. Ire would call
the woman and let her tell her own story, and he would then
examine one of the most eminent chemists in England, and
he would tell the sort of material which the defendant, Mr.
Hickson, had sold to the complainant for flour. He was of
opinion that ho would prove such a case as would enable the
bench to come to a conclusion that the defendant had been
guilty of a serious offence in vending adulterated food to the
public.
The first witness called was
Eliza Mitchell, who said, I live at No. 31, Portland-street,
and my husband is a sailor on board the Dublin boats. I
went to the defendant's shop in Vauxhall-road on the morning
of the 12th April. I paid 4d for 2 lbs of flour called " sixes ;"
I made it up in a pudding with pepper and salt, and gave it
to my husband, who, on partaking of it said he was poisoned,
as there was white lead or putty iu it ; I smelt it and it was
very bad. I went back with it to the defendant, and lie told
me " to be off out of that, for that I might have put lead or
putty in it as well as him." The witness then, in reply to
further questions stated that all the ingredients in the pudding
were clean and made up by herself, and that she never left
the house while it was cooking, and that it was quite impossible
that any one (could have put anything into the pudding, for
there was no one in the house at the time save herself. She
identified the remains of the pudding now produced. In reply
to Mr. Chilton, the witness said, the flour was taken out of a
bin and not out of a barrel. Mr. Chilton : Was there any
verdigris in the saucepan you used? Witness : No ; verdigris
don't collect in tin saucepans. To Mr. McGowan : It smelt
of putty, strong—whilst it was hot.
Dr. Sheridan Muspratt, sworn and examined : I am a
professor of chemistry, and I have had great experience as an
analytical chemist; I have examined the article now produced
(a portion of the pudding alluded to) and found it to contain
a great quantity of salt of lead ; I made a report on it, and
this is the report. The following report was put in and read :
"I certify that I have examined the sample of decaying
pastry matter, and find the annexed : It is largely admixed
with lead salts, chiefly carbonate, white lead. (Signed)
April 23rd, 1856: SHERIDAN MUSPRATT."
Mr. McGowan : On your oath, Dr. Muspratt, is that report
, true ?

conviction,

Dr. Muspratt : It is quite true.
In addition, the following certificate was put in and read :
"I certify that I have examined the samples of pastry, and
find the annexed :—Centesimally, 0.712 or 0.766 oxide, or
=852 of carbonate of lead.
For Dr. SHERIDAN MUSPRATT,
May 2nd, 1856. MAtuTIN MURPHY, Assistant.
On the back of this certificate was the following endorse-
ment, in Dr. Muspratt's hand-writing :

"In ono pound of the paste, there will be about (the white
lead is not equally dispersed through the mass) a drachm of
59.60 of carbonate of lead. " SHERIDAN MVSPRATT."
Mr. M`Gowan : Is that report true, doctor ?
Dr. Muspratt: It is quite true.
Mr. M‘Gowan : Is that injurious to health ?
Dr. Muspratt : It is highly injurious to health.
Mr. M‘Gowan : And if in quantities larger, is it not a
deadly poison
Dr. Muspratt : Yes, a very deadly poison.
Mr. M'Gowan : Even when taken in small quantities, is it
not sure to derange the whole system?
Dr. Muspratt: Most decidedly; it is highly injurious and
prejudicial to health and the system.
Mr. M‘Gowan : Do you know the price of white lead ?
Dr. Muspratt : It is very cheap in London, as cheap as one
shilling a hundredweight, I believe.
Mr. M'Gowan : Are you positive as to the analysis you
made in the matter?
Dr. Muspratt : I am quite positive.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chilton : He found traces of iron
and gypsum in the stuff.
Mr. Wybergh asked Mrs. Mitchell if there was any lead or
other matters of that sort about, where she kept the water at
her house ? and she replied that there was not, and that every
thing about the house was clean and sweet, and totally free
from dirt of any sort.
Mr. Chilton examined her at some length on the last
mooted point, but be did not shako her testimony. She said
the flour was given to her by the defendant himself. She
swore positively that there was no woman present when she
got the flour, nor was there any there when she came back
with the pudding ; nor did she speak to any one about it in the
shop when she came back with it, except to the defendant
himself.
Mr. M'Gowan said that was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Chilton said his client had been in trade for some
years, and his father before him ; and, up to the present,
there never was any charge against either of them. The
flour in question had been purchased from Messrs. Radford
and Sons, by sample, and there was a sample of it present.
Mr. M`Gowan : Have you a sample of what you sold Mrs.
Mitchell ? •
Mr. Chilton went on to address the bench, and repudiated
the charge that his respectable client would or had adulterated
the flour in question. He produced a woman, named Anue
Cafferty, who said she had been a customer at the shop of the
defendant for years past, and she statad that she had flour out
of the same place, on the same day as the complainant,
and of the same quality, and it was perfectly good, and made
excellent bread ; it was out of a barrel she got the flour, and
not from a bin, and she knew it was the same flour as the
complainant had, for she was in the shop when the complain-.
ant came back with the pudding, and complainant spoke to her
about it. _ _ _

Cross-examined by Mr. M`Gowan : I know it was the same
sort of flour I got, because it was the first " sixes" (that is
six pounds for a shilling), which the defendant had that year.
Mr. M'Crovvan : How do you know that ? Witness : Be-
cause I am always dealing there.
Mr. Chilton : Did the defendant send you some of it for the
purpose of trying it before he sold it?
Mr. M'Gowan objected to this, and proceeded to eross-
examine the witness, who in the long run admitted that she
could not tell anything about the flour which the complainant
got—in fact, that she was ignorant of the affair, only from what
she imagined of it.
John Quale, the baker of the defendant was called, and pro.
duced a loaf, which he swore was made ont of the same sort of
sour as that sold to the complainant, and the bread was per-
fectly good and sound. The witness stated that he did not see
any white lead in it.
Mr. Wybergh : When was that loaf made ? Witness : On
Monday or Tuesday last. He said the'` sixes was in a barrel,
and not iu a bin, but there were" fives," and " five-and-halfs"

in bins.
Mr. Wybergh Where was that flour purchased ? Witness:
From Radford and Son's. He never knew such a thing as
white lead to be mixed with flour.
On cross-examination by Mr. M'Gowan, the witness admitted
that the loaf he held in his hand was composed of a mixture of
other flour along with the sect he alleged that the complainant
got, although he admitted that in the first instance he had
sworn that the loaf was composed of all one flour.
Mr. M'Gowan : Then, sir, how dare you come here and
swear that you made a loaf out of the same sort of flour, when
you now admit that it was not the same, but a mixture ?
have (said Mr. M'Gowan) never heard of such au audacious
case as this is on the part of the defendant, to put a man into
the box to swear as this man has sworn.
The witness said he came in after the complainant had gone
out, when she complained of the flour, and he then took away
all that flour and baked it up.
Mr. Wybergh : Was it the same sort of flour you baked, or
did you mix it with other?
Witneas mixed it with other, (Cries of '‘ oh, oh.")
There were twenty barrels of the same lot of flour.
Mr. Chilton said his client had a very strong feeling in this
case. (A. voice, "So has every one who hpard the case.")
Jae had purchased the flour by sample from Messrs. Radford
and Sons, awl--
Mr. M'Gowan objected to this.
Mr. Chilton went on to say that no one could imagine that
his client had adulterated the flour, bat sold it just as it came
to him.

Mr. M'Gowan replieil on the part of the prosecution, and said
the evidence given for the defence was not worth a farthing.

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPCOL iA rURDAY, MAY 3, 1860

He contended that ho had proved his case, and called for a

Mr. Laurence and Mr. Wybergh conferred with Mr. Mans-
field for a short time, when Mr. Laurence said the
case was ono that presented some difficulties to his
mind, as regarded the act of parliament—the local
act. He did not think the provisions of that act reached
_ _ _

the present offence, and Mr. Mansfield held the same opinion.
The act referred to meat and fish, but did not mention meal or
flour ; and, therefore, he was of opinion the complaint could
not be sustained under that act.

. ~.. ...
Mr. M'Gowan said he bad known it to be held otherwise in

that court.
Mr. Laurence said, in his own mind he was inclined to go
with Mr. M‘Gowan, but he could not get over the act, and its
interpretation by Mr. Mansfield. It was a case of the utmost
importance to the public, and he thanked the health committee
for having brought it forward. At the same time, he did not
think by any means that the flour had been adulterated by the
defendant, nor that he knew it was adulterated. The evidence,
however, was quite conclusive as to the adulteration of the
flour, yet ho was bound to say he did not think the defendant
knew it. He must, therefore, dismiss the complaint.
Mr. M'Gowan then proceeded under the general act, and it
was agreed to take the evidence as admitted; and he argued
that under the act the defendant was liable.
Mr. Chilton contended the contrary, and
Mr, Laurence said, he did not think the case was supported,
so as to come within the meaning of the general act—that was,
that the defendant had the flour, knowing it was adulterated.
The case was then dismissed.