STRAWBERRY JAM.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11154, 21 December 1901, Page 6

STRAWBERRY JAM.

The axiom that things are not always what I they seem appears. to apply, to jam, especially when the jam is supposed to be made from strawberries or raspberries. Three cases wfcieh were heard in the Dunedin Magi*. , trat**s Court on Thursday shed a good deal i ol light on this important question. In the -first a local firm was charged with selling adulterated jam. Evidence was given that j what was sold as strawberry jam was found I on analysis to contain 20 per cent, of gooseberry seeds-, pulp, and ekins. For the defence it was contended that it was impos--1 sibla to mate good jam of > strawberries alone. Mrs Miller, , a teacher of, cookery, deposed that straybiurry ,jam needed the admixture of another acid fruit, or else it would-not set. A professional jam boiler . said that tne usual - practice was to add gooseberry juice. None of the witnesses, however, contended that it was necessary to add gooseberry skins and seeds," and it was suggested that these things must have got in by accident, The Magistrate* very

1 properly held that it a purchaser asked for tf| strawberry jam and paid for it, tu> wag en- .;$! , t\t\«& to get ettowbefry jam without tbe - 1 admixture, of anj daierior fruit. It the pus .-■ had been sold to the inspector as a mix- . ?| ture oi «ttawberry and goo3fc\»rry, nobody would have been misled, and there woul<f have been no offence. As it was, the de- >i,' fe»dant9 were fined 30s and costs, or a total of £5 245. Similar -penalties were inflicted in two other oases in which irha6 ixad been sold as raspberry jam was found to be adulterated with gooseberries. It waa admitted that the jam was quite as wholesome as if it had been composed solely of strawberries or raspberries, but that is not - the point. The purchaser who pays for an article is entitled to have the article of the "nature, substance, and quality de"manded." If anything of a cheaper '* quality is added, no matter if it is equally wholesome, the purchaser is "pro tanto" ,7 defrauded, and we are glad to see that the >| Dunedin Bench insisted on maintaining the consumers' rights.