It is clear, that no exclusive chemical analysis was ever made of the contents of plaintiff's bottle and that it is now impossible for us ever to know the percentage of alkali which it contained. And this situation is due entirely to defendant. One cannot but agree with counsel for plaintiff that the latter showed unusual good faith in trusting the bottle entirely to defendant and it could have responded adequately by having the contents analyze ed separately by a disinterested chemist not in its employ. Had it done so and had the result supported its present contention, it would hardly have needed better evidence.
Here the production of plaintiff's bottle with the contents analyzed separately by a disinterested chemist would have "settled the question" of how much alkali it contained and any doubt on that point must be received in plaintiff's favour. This unfavourable presumption is further strengthened by the fact that, following the disclosure of plaintiff's experience defendant withdrew from the market its stock of shampoo from which plaintiff's bottle came. On July 27, 1922, defendant's then manager wrote plaintiff's husband: "Upon investigation it was found that the stock was old and we immediately withdrew such old stucks from various places in Shanghai."
Again the formula for making the shampoo was changed. The present manager was asked Q.—What was the matter with the old formula?
A.—It contained free alkali—Pot-assum Carbonate. It was added'
Evidently it had been found, therefore, that "free alkali" was not a proper ingredient. But why, unless it proved injurious?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.