For the up-to-date dairyman has discovered how to adulterate the milk at the other end of the cow. He has found that by giving her certain food in excess he can make her produce an abnormally large quantity of milk which lacks the right proportion of cream and other constituents of genuine milk. It has more than once been ruled by a bench of magistrates, and more recently in the High Court, that all is not milk that comes from the cow, and that a customer who asks for "milk" is entitled to get something with certain definite characteristics. Even in cases where there would be no such escape from the results of the analyst's certificate, the ingenious adulterator is by no means at the end of his tether, but has numerous dodges upon which to fall back. One of the best known of these is the "notice dodge," examples of which must frequently have been seen by everyone. A notice, often in very small type, is put up to the effect that the seller will not guarantee that the goods he sells are genuine. Then when he is summoned for selling, say, adulterated milk, he produces his notice and claims that that indemnifies him. A very amusing instance of this notice dodge being carried to its logical conclusion was witnessed in Merionethshire a few years ago, when the Chief Constable of the district reported that all the shopkeepers had put up notices stating that "All goods sold here are adulterated." A similar deadlock occurred, in 1903, in Buckinghamshire, and there the County Council forbade such notices being exhibited, though it is doubtful whether it was within its legal rights in so doing. The plausible excuses put forward by the perverted ingenuity of the adulterator to escape conviction are innumerable. Mistake on the part of the seller, warranty with goods obtained from abroad, and the shop-boy as scapegoat are among the most common forms of defence. The extent to which a legal quibble may be carried reached its limit perhaps in a prosecution that occurred a few years ago. In a certain village there was only one shop, and that was a co-operative store, of which the whole of the villagers were members. A county inspector bought "pure" coffee at this shop, and on analysis the coffee was found to contain 90 per cent. of chicory, and eventually the manager of the store was fined. For the defence, it was urged that the villagers were themselves both shopkeepers and purchasers, and, therefore, could not be prejudiced by the sale of adulterated goods. The inspector, however, was not a member of the co-operative store, and on this ground the prosecution was successful. But if one of the villagers had bought the coffee, it is doubtful whether any fine could have legally been inflicted, for it would have been a case of co-operative adulteration.