IN 1946 Ms. Chin-Ting-Lee was convicted of selling impure butter to a policeman, Lance Corporal Felix Austin (No.4356), which ended with the Full Court, dismissing the appeal after amending the ingredient of the charge.

The policeman/respondent had asked the appellant to sell him a half pound of butter, but the appellant sold and delivered to him a substance resembling butter, which she (the appellant) described as butter.
The respondent wanted butter, and he asked that he be sold butter from the tin indicated by him.
A sample of the substance was subsequently analysed by the Assistant Government Analyst who issued the following certificate of analysis: “I am of opinion that the said sample is adulterated and contains ingredients as under.”
“The sample is a mixture of butter and margarine. The sample contains 50% margarine, which is prepared from vegetable fats, an imitation of butter fat.”
It was held (1) That the Analyst’s certificate showed that the sample contained less than 75 per centum of butter fat, and fell below the standard of purity for butter specified in the proviso to Section 6 (1) of, and in paragraph 3 of the first schedule to, Chapter 102;
(2) That the article sold as butter came within the definition of “margarine” in section 2 of the Sale of Food and drugs (Consolidation) Ordinance, Chapter 102, and was not of the nature substance and quality demanded by the purchaser.
(3) That the sale was certainly to the prejudice of the respondent as the article sold to him was not butter, as defined by the Sale of Food and Drugs (Consolidation) Ordinance, Chapter 102, to which he was entitled on his purchase.
A conviction made under Section 6 (1) of the Sale of Food and Drugs (Consolidation) Ordinance Chapter 102, should contain the averment that the sale was to the prejudice of the purchaser. Where such a conviction did not contain the averment as aforesaid, but the magistrate had found that the sale was to the prejudice of the purchaser, the conviction was amended accordingly.
The Full Court was constituted by Chief Justice J. A. Lukhoo and Justices Boland and Duke.
Mr. Ronald H. Lukhoo, appeared for the appellant, while Mr.A. V. Crane, acting Solicitor-General represented the respondent.
Delivering the judgment of the Full Court, Justice Duke said: “This is an appeal by the defendant Chin-Ting-Kee from the decision of a Magistrate of the Georgetown Judicial District convicting her of selling a certain article of food to wit, butter, not being of the nature substance and quality demanded by the purchaser namely, the complainant Lance Corporal 4356 Felix Austin, contrary to Section 6 (1) of the Sale of Food and the appellant sold and delivered to the respondent a substance resembling butter, which she described as butter. A sample of this substance was subsequently analysed by the Assistant Government Analyst who issued a certificate.
“Mr. Ronald H. Luckhoo, counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Analyst certificate did not sufficiently disclose the component parts of the butter, and of the margarine contained in the sample ; that the analyst set out his conclusion without stating the reason upon which his conclusion was founded; that the certificate did not show that the sample contained less than 75 per centum of fat within the meaning of paragraph 3 of the first schedule to Chapter 102, or that the substance of which the sample formed part was not entitled to the benefits of the proviso to Section 6 (1) of Chapter 102; and that therefore the Analyst’s certificate was neither in form nor in terms sufficient evidence of a contravention of Section 6 (1) of Chapter 102 on the part of the appellant.
“We agree with the learned Solicitor-General’s submission as to the interpretation of the proviso to Section 6 (1). He contended that in accordance with Section 9 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, Chapter 14, the burden of establishing that a case comes with the proviso is upon the defendant. It was open to the appellant to establish, either by independent evidence or by cross-examination of the analyst (and a defendant may, by Section 23 (1) of Chapter 102, require that the Analyst be called as a witness), that the sample did contain not less than 75 per centum of fat.
“Moreover, we would point out that paragraph 3 of the first schedule to Chapter 102 applies only when water, or salt , or water and salt is or are added to butter ; and that it does not apply when any other substance is added.
“The Analyst’s certificate shows that the article sold as butter is a mixture of butter and of margarine, and that the mixture consists of butter in the proportion of 50 per centum and of margarine in the proportion of 50 per centum: In other words the article sold as butter had a foreign ingredient, to wit, margarine, to the extent of 50 per centum.
“The appeal is dismissed with costs, and the conviction as amended, is affirmed.

(By George Barclay)