View report page

Public Health.
175
assistance in cases of emergency being exempted from the operatior of the sectior. It appeared desirable
that the provisions of the sub-section should be known as widely as possible, and with this object
the Council on 8th February, 1910, decided to give notice by public advertisement of the altered state
of the law.
Practice of
uncertified
persons.
The publicity thus given to the provisions of the section did not, however, entirely deter uncertified
persons from practising as midwives, for it became necessary during the year 1911 to institute
legal proceedings against 19 women for infringing the law in this respect. Convictions resulted in 18
instances, fines amounting to a total of £35 18s., with £12 3s. costs, being inflicted in 15 cases; while
three of the women were bound over not to repeat the offence, one being also ordered to pay 18s. 6d
as costs of the proceedings. In the remaining case the summons was dismissed. In addition to these
prosecutions, letters explaining the alteration in the law were addressed to 35 women.
In January, 1911, a woman whose name had been removed from the roll of midwives attended a
woman in childbirth, and her patient having died, an inquest was held upon the body with the result
that the midwife was committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter, and at the hearing of the charge
was convicted, and sentenced to four calendar months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
Amendment
of Midwives
Act.
The Central Midwives Board having invited the Council to express its view as to the desirableness
of deleting from sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Midwives Act, 1902, the words “habitually and for gain,"
the Council informed the Board that it appeared desirable that, in any amendment of the Midwives
Act provision should be made for the omission of these words.
On 21st June, 1911, the Privy Council approved a new series of rules which had been framed
by the Central Midwives Board. The rules came into operation on 1st July, and the Council sent
a copy to each practising midwife in the county.
Rules of
Central
Midwives
Board.
Accounts of
Central
Midwives
Board.
Health
vi?itor-».
The accounts of the Central Midwives Board showed an adverse balance for the year 1910, and
the Council was called upon in May, 1911, to pay a sum of £76 15s. 10d. as its proportion of this
deficit.
The Metropolitan Borough Council of St. Marylebone made application to the Council for a contribution
of one-half of the salaries of health visitors appointed by the borough council. The Council
decided, as in previous cases, to make the contributions asked for subject to the condition, among
others, that the contributions should be dependent on there being sufficient surplus on the exchequer
contribution account to enable payments to be made after making provision for the discharge of the
existing statutory charges on that account in full. Up to the present time twelve metropolitan
borough councils have appointed health visitors.
Com men
lodginghouses.
Applications were received tor licences to keep and use, as common lodging-houses, 306 premises
in the County of London, and licences were granted in respect of 304 of these premises, one application
being withdrawn and one refused. Two licensed keepers were fined £5 with 8s. costs for having
infringed the Council's by-laws.
During the year licences to keep seamen's-lodging houses have been granted in respect of 36
premises Legal proceedings were instituted in 5 instances for keeping unlicensed seamen's lodging-houses.
In each case a conviction followed and fines amounting to £44, with £4 7s. costs, were inflicted.
Nuisances.
During the year 375 complaints were made to the Council under the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891, as to insanitary conditions or failures in sanitary administration. Of these complaints
259 were anonymous.
The practice adopted is, in the case of signed complaints, to forward the complaint to the sanitary
authority and to take no further action unless the complainant appeals again to the Council. In
the case of anonymous complaints, the purport of the complaint is sent to the medical officer of the
district, and, unless an intimation is received that action has been taken, an inspection is subsequently
made. and. if then found necessarv. a further communication is sent to the sanitarv authoritv concerned.
Offensive
businesses—
knackers'
vards.
In pursuance of the authority conferred upon the Council by section 19 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1801, in three cases certain premises were removed from the register, the right to carry
on (1) fat-melting, (2) tallow melting, and (3) tripe boiling thereat having lapsed.
slaughterhouses,
cow
houses and
dairies.
The number of slaughterhouses, cowhouses and knackers yards licensed during the year was
242 slaughterhouses, 189 cowhouses, and 4 knackers' yards. There was one appeal against the decision
of the Committee not to grant renewal of licence in respect of a cowhouse; one appeal in respect of
a slaughterhouse; and one in respect of a knacker's yard. In each case the Committee's decision
was confirmed.
Draft by-laws relating to the businesses of a vendor of fried fish, fish curer and rag and bone
dealer have been approved provisionally by the Local Government Board, and the observations of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department are now awaited.
Drainage
by-laws.
The Hampstead Metropolitan Borough Council called attention to an appeal (Kershaw v. Brooks)
by the borough council, which came before the Divisional Court by way of special case from the decision
of a metropolitan police magistrate, dismissing certain summonses issued under the by-laws as to
drainage and as to deposit of plans made under section 202 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855,
and the Metropolis Management Acts Amendment (By-laws) Act, 1899. The question for decision
was as to the person liable for an infringement of the by-laws. The Borough Council summoned the
responsible person actually carrying out the work, and the summonses were dismissed by the magistrate
on the ground that they should have been issued against the person who ordered the work to
be done. The divisional court sustained the decision of the magistrate.
The Hampstead Borough Council also suggested that the by-laws should be amended to provide
that the builder or contractor in control of the works should be responsible in cases of breaches of the
by-laws, and as most of the borough councils were in favour of the amendment, the Council made
by-laws (which were duly confirmed by the Local Government Board) dealing with the point.