View report page

48
Annual Report of the London County Council, 1911.
Milkshops.
In 1908 the London County Council obtained the sanction of Parliament to a provision
contained in the General Powers Act of that year, authorising any sanitary authority to remove from
the register of milk vendors, or to refuse to register the name of any person carrying on or proposing
to carry on the business of a dairyman or purveyor of milk upon premises which, in the opinion of the
sanitary authority, are unsuitable for the sale of milk. The Act provides an appeal to a Court of
summary jurisdiction. These powers have been largely used in London. In Greenwich there were
9 refusals of applications for registration ; in Hampstead 3. In Hackney the proprietors of 21 milk
premises ceased to sell milk rather than make the necessary alterations required by the Public Health
Committee, to render the premises suitable under the General Powers Act. In the City registration was
withheld in 2 instances until the proprietors had complied with the Act. Dr. Collingridge states that
the Act has had a most beneficial effect in enabling authorities to deal with the sale of milk in small
chandler and grocers' shops. In Kensington 2 applications were refused ; and in Lambeth 37 applications
were refused on the ground that they were unsuitable. Dr. Porter states that in St. Marylebone
33 names were removed from the Register on account of the unsuitability of the premises for the
sale of milk, and on the same grounds 3 applications were refused. In Stepney 49 premises were
removed from the register and 29 applications were refused; in Westminster the Council refused
to register in 2 instances. No reference is made by medical officers to any case where the proprietor
has exercised his right of appeal against the refusal to register the premises.
In Battersea proceedings were instituted against a firm of dairymen for a serious breach of
Regulation 32 made under the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops Order, which provides that adequate
precautions shall be taken for preserving the purity of the milk and for protecting it against infection
or contamination. The milk in question was exposed in a passage way leading from a public street,
and evidence was given by the inspectors of the Borough Council that it was in a dirty condition.
For the defence it was contended that the regulation was ultra vires inasmuch as it did not proscribe
the precautions to be taken, and that to make the regulation effective this should have been done.
The magistrate stated that he reluctantly came to the conclusion that the summons must be dismissed,
and explained that he was compelled to decide the case according to his view of the law as it stands.
He offered to state a case, but the Battersea Borough Council did not think it advisable to appeal to the
High Court. It was decided, however, to ask the County Council to take steps to have the Regulations
amended in the direction indicated.
Dr. Thomas refers in his report to action taken against the proprietors of restaurants in Finsbury
in respect of the sale of milk. In 4 instances restaurant keepers were prosecuted for selling milk without
being registered for this purpose, and convictions followed in each case; but an appeal has been
entered in one ease. Dr. Thomas states that there arc 49 such premises in the borough where milk
is sold; 34 of these were registered in the usual way, and as the result of notices served on the
remaining 15, registration was effected or the sale of milk given up. With regard to the 127 other
restaurants where milk is sold in small quantities in connection with the sale of "tea and milk," "pot
of tea," "bread and milk," or porridge and milk," action was deferred pending a judicial decision
in the case raised for appeal. This case was the appeal of a firm of restaurant keepers against a conviction
for selling milk without being registered, and has since been decided, the Lord Chief Justice
giving judgment on the 21st October, 1912. His Lordship took the view that there was nothing in the
various regulations to show that the sale of a glass of milk incidental to the ordinary trade of restaurant
keeper involved that the restaurant keeper should be registered as a purveyor of milk. He did not
decide what would, under other circumstances, constitute the purveying of milk, but in his opinion
there was no evidence that the appellants were carrying on the trade of purveyors of milk. Mr. Justice
Channell and Mr. Justice Avory concurred, the latter adding that to be a purveyor of milk the selling
of milk must be a substantial part of the business carried on. The appeal, therefore, was allowed.

Inspection
of milkshop
premises.
(a) Figures in italics refer to persons registered.