"If any person shall solicit, take, or receive any order for spirits, wine, or other article, for the dealing in, retailing, or selling whereof an excise licence is by law required, without having in force a proper excise licence authorising him so to do," he shall be liable to a penalty. Held, that this section requires a proper excise licence to be taken out with respect to the shop or premises at which the soliciting or accepting of orders takes place, although the person who so solicits or accepts the order is himself duly licensed to deal in or sell the particular article at other premises; and, consequently, a person commits a breach of this section who, although he has in force in respect of one shop a proper excise licence for the retail sale of beer for consumption off the premises, solicits or accepts, either by himself or by his assistant or servant, at another shop, in respect of which he has no such licence, orders for beer for the selling whereof an excise licence is required, which orders are to be forwarded to and to be executed from the licensed premises, and in such case the licensed person for whom the order is accepted is equally liable whether the order is accepted by himself or by the assistant in the shop. (Elias and another, apps. v. Dunlop, resp. Dec. 15, 1905. K. B. Div.) 105.

Excise-Saccharin-Manufacture of -Treating saccharin by chemical process and making it sweeter-Manufacturer's licence Prescribed book to be kept by maker of saccharin - Finance Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 7), 88. 5, 9-Revenue Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 46), s. 2-Regulations (No. 633 of Statutory Rules and Orders, 1904).By sect. 5 of the Finance Act, 1901, an excise duty is imposed upon saccharin made in Great Britain or Ireland, and a licence is required to be taken out by a manufacturer of saccharin; and by sect. 9 the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are empowered to make regulations prohibiting the manufacture of saccharin except by persons holding a licence. The appellants, who were dealers in saccharin, had treated a quantity of 330 saccharin (that is, saccharin 330 times as sweet as sugar) which they had bought or imported, and upon all of which duty had been paid, by a certain chemical process, the result of which was that in some cases 550 saccharin (that is, saccharin 550 times as sweet as sugar) was produced, in some cases a mixture sweeter than 330, but not so sweet as 550 saccharin was produced, and in a few cases the

Margarine -" Parcel" - Margarine
Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 29), s. 6.-Six
rounded pieces of margarine placed in the
form of a triangle so that three form the
base, two being placed upon the three, and
one upon the two, all touching, sufficiently
form one "parcel" within sect. 6 of the
Margarine Act, 1887. (Parkinson, app. v.
McNair, resp. Aug. 7,1905. Κ. Β. Div.) 42.

Milk--Prosecution-Defence of pur-
chase with written warranty - Place of
delivery to purchaser-Milk to be" delivered
carriage paid to" a certain railway station
-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 &
39 Vict. c. 63), s. 25. --The respondent, who
kept a dairy at East Ham, having been
summoned under sect. 6 of the Sale of Food
and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling milk
which was deficient in fat, set up the
defence under sect. 25 that she had pur-
chased the milk as the same as that
demanded of her by the purchaser, and
with a written warranty to that effect, and
that she had sold it in the same state as
when she purchased it. She had entered
into a written contract for the purchase of
"sixteen gallons of pure new milk with all
its cream, delivered daily, carriage paid, to
Wanstead Park Station," and while this
contract was in force a number of churns
of milk arrived at Wanstead Park Station
consigned to the respondent from a station
in Derbyshire, and were labelled," warranted
pure new milk with all its cream, pursuant
to contract." The churns remained on the
platform at Wanstead Park Station for
nearly an hour, when they were taken away
by the respondent to her dairy. On the
same morning part of the milk was sold,
which was found to be deficient in fat. It
was proved that the milk when sold by the
respondent was in the same state as when
she received it at Wanstead Park Station,
but there was no evidence as to whether
it was in the same state as when it was
delivered by the seller at the station from
which it was sent, or when taken from the
train on its arrival at Wanstead Park.
Held, that the place of delivery of the milk
to the respondent was at Wanstead Park
Station, and not at the station from which
it was sent; that the purchase took place
when she received the milk in her van at
Wanstead Park Station, and that as she
had proved that she sold the milk in the
same state as she had received it at that
station, she was thereby discharged from
the prosecution under sect. 25. (Sanders,
app. v. Sadler, resp. Oct. 27 and 29, 1906,
K. B. Div.) 316,

Milk-Warranty-Label attached to

churn - No written contract of sale
Sufficiency of label - Sale of Food and
Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63),
s. 25.-A written contract for the sale of
warranted pure new milk having expired,
the seller continued to supply milk to the
purchaser. Both during the period of the
written contract and subsequently a label
was attached to each churn containing the
words, "Pure new milk," the names of
both seller and purchaser, the quantity,
and the date. Held, that the label was a
sufficient written warranty within sect. 25
of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875,
in respect of milk so delivered after the
expiration of the written contract. (Lewis,
app. v. Weatheritt, resp. Jan. 14, 190.
K. B. Div.) 789.

Milk-Warranty - Sufficiency-Sale
of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (35 & 39 Vict.
c. 63), ss. 9, 25-Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 20.-By
a contract, dated the 2nd day of October,
1905, E. agreed with the G. W. and M.
Dairies to purchase the whole of the milk
required for his dairy for twelve months,
and the agreement contained a warranty
that the milk should be pure with all its
cream as received from the cow. In June,
1906, milk was delivered to E. from G. W.
and M. Dairies, with the delivery note con-
taining the date, E.'s name, and the name
of the G. W. and M. Dairies, but no
reference was made to the contract of the
2nd day of October, 1905. Held, that
as he E. was to take all his milk from
the G. W. and M. Dairies during the
period within which this particular con-
signment was made, and as the warranty
in the agreement applied to all the
milk sold within that period, there was
sufficient evidence in writing to connect
the particular consignment with the
warranty in the agreement. Watts v.
Stevens (L. T. Rep. 200; (1906) 2 Κ. Β.
323) considered. (Evans, app. v. Weat-
heritt, resp. March 26, 1907. K. B. Div.)
415.

Milk Warranty Prosecution
Defence of purchase with written warranty
-Contract to supply milk-Future de-
liveries Written warranty previously
given-No warranty with particular con-
signment-Sale of Food and Drugs Act,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 25.-Upon an
information under sect. 6 of the Sale of
Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling
milk which was not of the nature, substance,

and quality demanded by the purchaser,
the defendant relied as a defence upon
sect. 25 of the Act that he had purchased
the milk with a warranty in writing as to
its purity, and that he had sold it in the
same state as when he purchased it; and it
was proved that in August, 1905, he had
made a contract with a farmer for the
supply of milk, and before the supply of
any milk under the contract the farmer
sent to the defendant a letter of the 5th
day of August, 1905, stating: "I guarantee
that the milk supplied by me to Mr. Stevens
is perfectly pure and with all its cream";
and both the seller and the purchaser
intended this to be a continuing guarantee.
The milk in question, which was sold on
the 28th day of December, 1905, had not
been purchased by the defendant with any
warranty, except in so far as the above
letter constituted a warranty, but it was
contended on behalf of the defendant that
the letter of the previous August extended
to and covered the milk sold by the
defendant on the 28th day of December,
and was a sufficient warranty within
sect. 25. Held (Ridley, J. dissenting),
that in order to constitute a defence in
such a case under sect. 25, there must be a
written connection between the warranty
relied upon and the particular consignment
or parcel in question in respect of which
the complaint is made, and, as there was
nothing to show such written connection
between the milk sold on the 28th day of
December and the warranty contained in
the letter of the previous August, the
defendant was not entitled to rely on the
defence given by sect. 25, or to be dis-
charged from the prosecution thereunder.
(Watts, app. v. Stevens, resp. May 28-29,
1906. K. B. Div.) 230.

Milk - Warranty - Abstraction of
fat-Defence of written warranty-Suffi-
ciency-Grantor not immediate vendor-
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 &
39 Vict. c. 63), s. 25. In order that a
warranty may be relied upon as a defence
under sect. 25 of the Sale of Food and
Drugs Act, 1875, such warranty must have
been given to the person raising that
defence from his immediate vendor, and
must be given in writing. Quære, whether
the benefit of a written warranty given by
the farmer to the middleman can be trans-
ferred by a contract in writing between
the middleman and his purchaser, so as
to be a defence under sect. 25. (Har-
greaves v. Spackman, Dec. 9. K. B. Div.)
541.

Practice-Inspector procuring sample
by agent-Agent a qualified officer-Right
of inspector to take proceedings-Sale of
Food and Drugs Act (Amendment Act),
1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 30), s. 3-Sale of
Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict.
c. 63), ss. 13, 20.-A sample of milk in
course of delivery to a purchaser may be
procured by an inspector under sect. 3 of
the Sale of Food and Drugs Act (Amend-
ment Act), 1879, by an agent, and the
inspector may cause the sample so obtained
through his agent to be analysed, and may
himself in his own name lay an information
and take the proceedings under the section
for the recovery of penalties, although he
has not himself taken the sample and
although the agent who took the sample
was himself an inspector who was competent
to take proceedings. (Tyler, app. v. Dairy
Supply Company, Ltd., resp. Feb. 11, 1908.
K. B. Div.) 612.

Practice Brandy - Division of
Sample - Portion handed to seller not
sufficient for analysis-Certificate-Sale of
Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict.
c. 63), s. 14. Each of the three parts into
which an article bought for analysis is
required to be divided by sect. 14 of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, although
they need not be equal or mathematically
the same quantity or identical in every
respect, must all be sufficient to afford sub-
stantially the same facilities for analysis.
The certificate of the analyst correctly
stated the parts or the percentages of
foreign ingredients in the same, but the
analyst, in giving the reasons for his opinion
why the sample was adulterated, by an
error in copying stated it contained only
25 parts of A. E. per 100,000 parts of P. S.
instead of 32·7 parts. The analyst was
called to correct this error, which could be
corrected by the figures given in the cer-
tificate itself. Held, that the certificate was
good. (Lowery, app. v. Hallard, resp.
Dec. 19-20, 1905. K. B. Div.) 75.

Practice-Sale of article injuriously
affected by abstraction Purchase for
analysis-Division into three parts-Part
incapable of analysis by Inland Revenue
Department Condition precedent to con-
viction-Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875,
(38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 9, 14, 21, 22; and
1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 21. In a
prosecution under sect. 9 of the Sale of
Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling an
article of food which has been injuriously
affected by the abstraction of a part of it,
and sect. 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1899, is not available where the offence
charged is importing packages of butter
adulterated by the admixture of foreign fat
without the package being conspicuously
marked indicating that the butter had been
so treated, contrary to sect. 1 of the Sale
of Food and Drugs Act, 1899. (Kelly, app.
v. Lonsdale & Co. resp. June 22, 1906. K.
B. Div.) 281.

SAVAGE ANIMAL. - Personal injury-Lia-
bility of owner-Master and servant-Scope
of employment-Intervening act of third
person. A dog known by the owner to be
savage was intrusted to the custody of a
servant who incited it to fly at the plaintiff
and it bit her. She brought an action in
the County Court for damages, but the
judge nonsuited her. Held, that there
must be a new trial, as the question whether
the servant's wrongful act was done in the
course of his employment, or whether it was
done for purposes of his own, ought to have
been left to the jury. Held, also (Kennedy,
L.J. dissenting), that if a man keeps an
animal whose nature is ferocious, or an
animal of a class not generally ferocious
but which is known to the owner to be dan-
gerous, the owner of that animal is bound
to keep it secure at his peril, and is liable
for any injury done by it, though the injury
is directly brought about through the inter-
vening voluntary act of a third person.
Decision of Divisional Court affirmed.
(Baker v. Snell. July 16, 1908. С. А.) 716.

SODOMY.-Evidence of accomplice - Uni-
versal practice - Corroboration-How far
non-denial of charge may be corroboration
-Misdirection. On the trial of an indict-
ment for sodomy, the jury were not warned
that they should receive the evidence given
by the prosecutor with caution, the prose-
cutor being an accomplice. Appeal against
conviction on the ground of misdirection.
Held, that, although there is no rule of law
that the evidence of an accomplice must be
corroborated, it is the universal practice for
the judge to tell the jury that they ought
not to act on the uncorroborated evidence
of such a person; that, although non-denial
of the charge might, in some cases, amount
to corroboration, the fact that the prisoner
did not in this case deny the accusation
when formally charged by the police did
not amount to corroboration. (Rex v. Tate.
July 3, 1908. Ct. Crim. App.) 694.

STREET. Building-Projection over street-
Pole and flag-Liverpool Improvement Act,

1882. -By sect. 36 of the Liverpool Im-
provement Act, 1882: "It shall not be lawful
without the written consent of the corpor-
ation to construct, place, fix, or hang any
door, shutter, trap, platform, shoot, sign,
cathead, crane, hoist, or other apparatus or
thing in connection with any building or
structure so as to project over the surface
of any street at any time, or so as to allow
any suspended load to hang over the sur-
face of any street at any time." The
respondent placed an iron pole through a
window to which was attached a flag or
advertisement on canvas. The pole was
bolted to the main portion of the building by
a screwbolt and nut, and could be removed
by unscrewing the bolt and nut. Held, that
the pole and flag could be a "sign" within
sect. 36 of the Act of 1882. (Goldstraw,
app. v. Jones, resp. Nov. 5, 1906. К. В.
Div.) 350.

SUNDAY. -Sunday observance-Carrying on
ordinary business on Sunday-Cooking
and selling of food to poor persons-
Cookshop"-Exemption-Sunday Obser-
vance Act, 1677 (29 Car. 2, c. 7), ss. 1, 3.-
The appellant, a chipped potato dealer, in
his business cooked potatoes, sometimes
alone and sometimes with fried fish, and
these articles were a popular food with
working people. The fried potatoes and
fish were served on the appellant's pre-
mises as well as off the premises, and were
always sold warm. Customers sometimes
ate the food on the premises and some-
times took it away in bags and sometimes
ate it in the street near the shop. Upon
an information under sect. 1 of the Sunday
Observance Act, 1677, the appellant was
convicted of the offence of carrying on
his ordinary business on a Sunday. Held,
quashing the conviction, that the appel-
lant's shop was a cookshop, and came
within the exemption in sect. 3 of "dress-
ing and selling of meat in cooks' shops or
victualling houses for such as cannot
otherwise be provided," and that the ap-
pellant had therefore committed no offence
under sect. 1. Rex v. Cox (2 Burr. 785)
and Rex v. Younger (5 T. R. 449) followed.
(Bullen, app. v. Ward, resp. Aug. 10,
1905. K. B. Div.) 28.

Work-Liability for act of servant-
Sunday Observance Act, 1677 (29 Car.
2, c. 7). On an information under the
Sunday Observance Act, 1677, it was
proved that at 1.20 p.m., on Sunday, the
13th day of May, 1906, several persons
went to the appellant's shop and purchased