ALLEGED POISONOUS MATTER IN GINGER ALE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8793, 1 May 1890, Page 2 (Supplement)

ALLEGED POISONOUS MATTER IN GINGER ALE.

At tho Hesident Magistrate's Court yesterday the rehwring of the cue of Kdward Hitchiioolc v. Jamei Samson and Janet Low was taken beforo Mr IC. If. Oarew, lt.M. The olaim was fur £50, for " damages sustained by plaintiff in ooiisequenoe of injuries cimsoJ to him by the presence of injurious matter - viz., lead und sulphuric acid—ln a bottle, of ginger aJo purchased by him from defendants." Mr S. Solomon appeared lor plai,.tlff. Sir Kobort S,Lout tor defendant Low, and Mr D. 1). Macdonald forclefendant b'amsou. Mr Solomon thought it would be quite unnecessary for him to go into tho Ofiße Ue navo and to mention the circumstances under which tho claim connected with the casj arose, a3 tho facts would no itmblbe fully within his Worship's mind. JJeloro suving anything on the subject ho would like to understand in what way the evidence was to be placed berc.ro his Worship. Ho had had a conversation with Mr Macdonnld on tho matter, and It had

Imcu suggested that (Me evidenoo given iv tho previous case sliould be hold to have been given in this ttise, and that either side should have Uio right to supplement, ita case us far as was desired. Ho was quite willing to consent to that course, because it was quitu unnecessary to occupy his Worship's time by proiliiC.Hß evidence already given. "Counsel for tho defence agreed to this course, and It was further agreed that witnesses previously called might be rooalled for examination and crossexamination. Mr Solomon then continued that tho points oil which plaintiff's case roliod were as follows:—(1) That on the 9th February ISO!) plaintiff was, so far as ho know, perfectly healthy and active; (2) on that date he drank outof a bottle a tumbler of ginger

ale, and on drinking it he noticed a metallio taste; (3) that within a few hours he developed symptoms v.-hichat any rate were consistent with acute lead poisoning; (i) that he was examined by two medical men, who asserted that lie w<is suffering from acute

lead' poisoning; (5) that on tho remainder of the liquid which w.is left in the .bottle being tested the same night it showed distinct indications of lead in solution; and (0) that on being carefully oxamined some time afterwards it was ascertained them was lead

present iv lurge quantities. He would now ask hio Worship to brieily note what lie (Mr Solomon) took tn be answers made by defendants to these points. Tliey were:—(l) That tho symptoms developed by tho plaintiff were consistent with ordinary colic, and tint there was an abaenoo of the blue lime ; {2) that

the presence of lead as ascertained sometime afterwards did not prove lbs preßtnce on tbe date of the injury; (3) that it hart been stated that there wa9 free sulphuric acid present in the liquid examined by MrHill, and that therefore whatever lead was present must have bsen in the form of sulphate of lead, which substance was innocuous in consequence of Its

Insolubility; (4) that it was unlikely that there was load present in this bottle, because if there had been there would 'probably have been lead In the other bottles, and it was not proved that there

was lead in them; (5) that .there was nothing in the machinery to produce lead; (6) that, no complaints had been made to them by other persons nbout the ginger ale. In the first place, he ought to say that he regretted that the case from a chemical point of view was not placed before his Worship previously in as complete a form as it should hava bean, but his excuse, to some extent, was that

lie was utterly unprepared for tho nature of the dofence that had been set up. He had anticipated that there might have been a defence of a legal character, or a defence as to the quantity, but that there should be a denial of the charge he never

thought for a moment. He was quite unpreparod for that, seeing that immediately after tho occurrence Mr low, manager for tho defendants, visited the plaintiff at his huuse and expressed regret at what bad happened. Sir Koßert Stout held that that was not evidence. Mr Solomon went on to say that, at any rate, he would prove that Mr Low visited the man when lie was ill and bad a conversation with him. Learned counsel then spoke at length as to tho case he was prepared to make out, staling among other things that Drs Gordon Macdonald and Ogston would say that it was n mattcrof positive certainty that on tho night of this occurrence there was lead in solution in tho bottlo. Since the eaee was before the court a month ago he had had several bottles of tho ginger ale examined, and in three of the bottles, at any rata, there were distinct indications of lead, and in one of them there was found no less than nearly half a grain of lead, or at the rate of six grains to the gallon. Whether that would cause acute lead poisoning or not he could not say. He did not know whe:.hor the opposite side still hold the opinion that no complaints had been made about the remainder of the ginger ale.

i Sir liobert Stout remarked that there were no complaints about the ginger ale made in the brow from which the bottle drank by plaintiff was takeu. TVTr Solomon caid that that) might be so, but what he would prove was this; that the ginger ale was delivered on the Sth of February ana drank next day—ho would not say when it was brewed—and that about the end of January one of low's customers—a publican named Macdonald—returned the ginger ale supplied to him as unfit for humanconsumption,atid had not dsalt witli him since. Briefly, Mr Solomon went on, his reply to the defence that lie expected to be set up was that as far aa the symptoms were concerned they were in his favour, and whether the doctors said it was difficult to distinguish or not was away from the poiut. The medical gentleman who had examined the ease ewore positively as to Yih&ls waa the matter with the man, and Dr Mncdonlad would any that it was physically impossible for the m»n to have drnnk a glass of the liquid he found in the bottle without developing the symptoms lie found when, attending to him. Then, as to the presence of lead in the bottle afterwards, he held that that was disposed of by the evidence that would bo given on tha point that there was lead in the otUer bottles. Tho statement (ib to the presence of sulphuric acid would also be disposed of, and he would show that the doctrine set up by the other side was incorrect. Nothing could bo rasher and wilder, he thought, than the remarks mndo by Dr Ji-ffeo.it—viz., that he was prepared to take 16 grains of tbe sulphate of lead—in view of the authorities on the subject; in fact, lie could hardly have thought of what he was Eaying. As to the fourth point, that if there was lead in one bottlo there would havfl been the same in the other bottles, that was explained, as it would bo proved there was lead in the others; and as to the machine, he held it was quite capable of producing lead. The remaining poiut would be absolutely denied. Taking the case altogether, he thought tuero could bo no rational doubt in his Worship's mind that the man suffered from the natural effects of the compound lie had drunk. Ho submitted that although his learned friend (Sir Eobert Stout) had induced his Worship to grant a rehearing of the case, the decision already given by his Worship was a perfectly fair and correct one. Ho would now call evidence. Mr Carew remarked that the reason why be had granted a rehearing was became ho thought he had not given sufficient weight to the chemical evidence. Dr Gordon llacflonald said he had examined the ginger ale complained of with snlphuric acid, and the immediate result was a white precipitate. He did not apply any further test to the liquid. There was an original sediment in the bottle. He took ,1 small quantity of it and put sulphuric acid to it, with no result, and the same thing happened when he put nitric acid to it. The sediment would not burn. It was not possible that the liquid he examined could have contained free sulphuric acid. If it had, he would not havo got the white precipitate immediately. The only substances lis knew of in chemistry that would give an immediate white precipitate with sulphuric acid were barium arid lead The compound that gave the precipitate was in a stato of solution. In witness' opinion, lead in solution waa the metillic salt in precipitate. A man could not safely drink a glass of the liquid examined. Tho result would be acute lead poisoning. To Sir Eobert Stout: He had said at tho previous hearing that he WB3 nut in a position to express a positive opinion. He spoke now from better knowledge, and from the symptoms of the man. Hulf a grain of lead in a bottle might produce colic. He could not name a recorded ease in which 10 grains had injured a man. That question was difficult to answer, because the amount a man could take would depend on his physical coudition at the time.

To Mr Solomon : By analysis alone ho came to the conclusion as to what the liquid contained.

Dr Ogston siid that he had examined and tested Ihe liquor sent to him. On tlw result of his teat

alone he had no doubt that it contained lead. Witnesss would not like to rißk takinga tumbler of what was in the bottle.

To Sir K. Stout: Ha could not name a ease fa which a man taking up to 10 grains of lead for the fust time was at onco seized with colic. Cases of acute lead poisoning, taking the strict sense of the term, were exceedingly rare.

Edward H. Hill snid that in tha bottle he tested he found lead and sulphuric acid—lm did not say free sulphuric acid. When he found it it was in combination with lead. There must have been some other compound of lead besides Bulphate. There was at least half a grain of ter.d in what he found, so that in the whole bottle there would be at least 19 grains of lead. Ho thought that a leaden pipe passing from the agitator to the bottling machine was a source of great risk. Citric acid, which was used in the preparation, increased tho solvent power of water. Josiah P. Lane stated that he knew the machinery used by Low and Co., having been employed there for a number of years. The pipes leading from the agitator to the feeding macbiuea were made of leari. One of the pipes wai 7ft long, another 9ft and the other 15ft. The 9ft pipes would hold an amount of liquid equal to about three bottles full. Some of the Byrnp pipes were made of lead and some of indlnrubber. In the pipes leading from the agitator to the machine it was a common thing to find " dead " water iv the morning. That wa3 not put in the bottles, but went to waste. To Sir Uobeit Stout: Witness had had experience with the machinery for the past 12yeare, and during all that time there had been no cases of lead pohoning. One of the syrup pipes was loft loDg. It was a Jin pipe.

Hiobard Pos-ley, barman at Macdonald'a Hotel, Baid that before the end of January 1800 ginger ale had been taken from tho company. About the middle of January a quantity of it was sent back, as it wa3 of a muddy colour.

This concluded plaintiff's case. Sir Robert Stout eaid he would like to put a few questions to the plaintiff.

Kdward Hitchcock was then sworn, end in answer to Sir Robert Stout said Hint two dozen bottle 3of ginger nlo were obtained, but only one of them had tit-en drunk. Me could not say how many bottles had bc-en taken away for analysis. A immbar of ths rcmiirder were emptied out.Rß a carter called for them. W'itiK-ss had never said that his people had lastel the ginger ale. The day on which he took the ginger ale ho had roast duck, green peas, and some stuffing f.ir dinner. Before that he had drunk five or six cups of ho*, water. Ho took the water until lie thought he had vomited enough. Iv answer to Mr Solomon, witness Baid that Mr Low wa3 not on visiting terms at his house. After witne-s had taken the ginger ale and had beeu spoken to by witness' brother he visiled wituees' how c, nn'l remained with him for half an honr

Sir Robert Stout, in opening his cisc, remarked that it v/as a most extraordinary tiling that three expert6-at all events, two experts—bnd to como to the court that day and Rive evidence at variance with that previously Riven by them. Another remarkauln thing was that ths defenco rlioiild Jiai'o had no notice of the intention of tlio other 6idc to analyse the ginger ale. Ho held that what his learned friend had to establish without doubt was that the Ringer ale contained two thinfjs-lead and sulphuric acid. He would point out, in addition, that both rxperts came into court that day and asserted positively what they could not assert posi--1 tvely when the case was previously before the court. These two gentlemen did not examine tho liquid until a day and al.alf after the le.<d cork fiad heen in it. Hoarding the pipes it was plain that as tho "dead" water was run off every morning no harm could come from that source, and respecting the pipes from the syrup jar he would prove that tho man who had charge of them had taken special care with them so as to jwsid any danger from lead poisoning. Ho had cleared the pipe every morning for fear that lead might be in it. There was nooonnection between thecontents of the ginger ale and Mr Hitchcock's illness at all. The meal the plaintiff took was sufficient to explain all. He thought he was poisoned, so lie took large quantities'of water, which caused violent vomiting, and immediately after that his stomach, which had been weakened b7 this vomiting, was loaded with a heavy meal in the form of roaßt duck, green peaa,

and fltuiHnß—moot indigestible food. That wns tlio whole position of the matter. The stomach would naturally be weak after to much leucliiriK, and Die result was that it was weak and Hid not net well. Inllamnntion wna Own set up, and severe colic followed. Ho would iiiso prove that live or 10 grains would not harm any person ; even as much as UO grains Imd been given to a p-jtlent as a doao without any injurious consequences whatever, and it would notott up colic. He had looked through all tho bookß referred to by thu other sido, and In not a single ciibti in them whs It stated tliuti even 20 grains had cinised i.eutis lead poieoniug. All the cased cited by the opposite bide were of chronic lend poleoniug.iuid there wns not one of acute loud poisoning Hu wished to call one or two witnesses that night, as they had to return to the country Iv tho morning. Ho first called

Dr I'1. T. King, superintendent of the Seueliff Asylum, who stated Ui,k if a person took lil grains of lend - about hull sulphate of land and tlio residue another suit of lead—in Kinder ale, tlio effect, iv witness' opinion, would not be to givo him severe colic. He Imd inudo some experiments with Kinder nlo mid lend. If a person took an emetic nnil tiien had a heavy dinner it would likely net up colic. To Mr Solomon: Witness was admitted to till profession in 188' J. Ho had treated 'several oa:CB of chronic colic, but nono of acute colic.

Tho c;iso was adjourned till to-diiy (Thursday) at 2 o'clock. The hearing yesterday extended over live hours and a-lialf.