View report page

68
Annual Report of the London County Council, 1911.

It will be seen from the above table that of the 47 instances in which proceedings were taken,
convictions were secured in 37 instances, four cases were dismissed, in three instances the defendants
absconded, in two instances defendants were bound over, and one case was committed for trial.
In some of the reports illustration is given of the difficulties met with in instituting proceedings
against the vendors of unsound food. Thus, in Finsbury, the defendant asserted that the business and
the seized meat belonged to another person, and an unstamped agreement was produced to confirm
this statement. The magistrate, however, convicted and defendant was fined £100 and costs. In
Fulham a quantity of unsound meat found in the ice safe of a butcher was seized by the inspector, but the
summons was dismissed on the ground that it was doubtful whether the meat was intended for the food
of man. Dr. Porter, in the report relating to St. Marylebone, mentions the case of the seizure of two
tuberculous pigs' heads. The defendant pleaded that he had purchased the heads from a dealer in the
Central Meat Market, and had paid full price for them. The dealer was found and corroborated this
statement, but the magistrate convicted. Neither the vendor nor the dealer denied that the heads
were tuberculous, but both evidently relied on the system of inspection in vogue in the market, and had
not made a personal examination of the goods which had, as a matter of fact, escaped inspection. The
St. Marylebone Borough Council drew the attention of the City Corporation to the matter, and communicated
with the Councils of all the Metropolitan Sanitary Authorities with a view to united action being
taken. Several of the reports contain reference to similar experiences in connection with meat derived
from the Central Market, and Westminster instituted a prosecution of a central market salesman, which
was, however, unsuccessful. Dr. Millson, of Southwark, makes mention of a quantity of condensed
milk on the premises of a general grocer. On one of the cases was found a paper, on which was written
"This milk is intended for pigs" food." It was argued that the defendant was accustomed to sell condensed
milk for this purpose, but at the adjourned hearing of the case the magistrate convicted, with a
fine of £50 and costs. In the Stepney report, Dr. Thomas mentions a case where the defendants,
evidently in good faith, admitted that they had no idea what a tuberculous gland would look like, and
he raises question as to the knowledge of the symptoms of this disease possessed generally by slaughtermen
in the country, where inspection is inadequate and often non-existent. He suggests as a remedy
the licensing of slaughtermen, and instances as a parallel the Midwives Act. He points out that the
enforcement of the latter Act has not created any dearth of midwives, and that similarly if slaughtermen
were licensed there would in a little while be no want of qualified men to fill the demand. In Dr.
Collingridge's report the chief veterinary inspector of the City Corporation also comments on the lack
of knowledge of farmers and pig breeders concerning tuberculosis, and suggests that County Councils
might arrange lectures and demonstrations at various centres, to which interested persons should
be invited.