[579]. For subsequent statutes see Jac. L. Dict., and Burn’s Justice by Chetwynd: tit. bread.
[580]. The following are the more usual additions made by the publican; beer-heading, which is intended to impart the “cauliflower head,” and consists of sulphate of iron, common salt, and alum, for which several convictions have taken place, (Minutes of the Committee, above cited); it is necessary to observe that the addition of this “heading” is made with a view to restore the property of frothing to the porter, which has been destroyed by dilution with table beer. The extract of the berries of the Coculus Indicus, possessing properties eminently narcotic, is added for a purpose too obvious to require explanation, and is regularly sold by the brewer’s druggists under the technical appellation of “BLACK EXTRACT.” There is also another preparation, for a similar object, sold under the name of “BITTERN,” and which is a compound of black extract, extract of quassia, Spanish liquorice, and calcined sulphate of iron. “Multum,” used as a substitute for malt and hops, consists of Extract of Quassia, and Liquorice. We must close this note by expressing our regret at the little assistance to be derived from chemistry in the detection of such frauds; mineral substances, as sulphate of iron, or any of the mineral acids, can certainly be recognised in our laboratories; but when we attempt to identify vegetable principles, the resources of analysis completely fail.
[581]. Hydrometer employed by the excise, act 58, G. 3, c. 28 and 56 G. 3, 140. Acetometer 58 G. 3, c. 65, s. 8.
[582]. We cannot follow the foreign writers who speculate on the possibility of determining age from physiological criteria. Unfortunately the ordinary mode of proof from parish registers is often defective, as the act only requires the date of the baptism, and not of the birth; many clergymen refuse to insert the latter under the plea that birth and baptism should be nearly cotemporaneous. Every day’s experience shows the contrary; and as many nice points may arise as to the very day on which a person (for instance) attains the age of twenty-one, we hope this practice will be amended.
[583]. But to avoid these questions, it is the practice of the insurance offices specially to name gout and some other disorders in their enquiries of the usual medical attendant of the party insuring.
[584]. For the doctrine of day of date exclusive or inclusive, see Lord Mansfield, in Pugh v. Duke of Leeds. Cowp. Rep. 714.
[585]. There is another case in which it is important to ascertain whether a person was in imminent danger, for if a contract for the purchase of a presentation be entered into while the incumbent is known by the parties to be in great danger, it is simoniacal. In Fox v. Bishop of Chester, Spring Assizes, 1821, after a long consultation the following issues were agreed to be put to the jury.
1st. Whether Mr. T. and Mr. F. or either of them knew, that Mr. B. (the incumbent) was in great danger at the time of the execution of the deed?—Verdict. That they both knew of it.
2d. Whether Mr. B. was afflicted with a mortal disease and in great danger?—Verdict. Yes.
3d. Whether Mr. T. and Mr. F. or either of them believed that Mr. B.’s life was despaired of at the time of the execution of the deed?—Verdict. That his life was despaired of by both of them.