View report page

56
I seized in Chrisp Street 43 tins of condensed milk. The man who
had care of the barrow, when charged before the Magistrate, stated
that he was not the owner of the milk, and upon information given
by him the premises of the owner were entered by the Medical
Officer of Mile End, he being armed with a search warrant, and a
seizure was made of a large quantity of tinned milk and articles of
food. The results of the ultimate police-court proceedings were, the
man in charge of the barrow was fined 5s., the owner £5 and 2s.
costs, and the firm who sold the milk in the first place were fined
£20 and £5 5s. costs, the penalty in the last instance being inflicted
under the Public Health (London) Act, Section 47 (3), which is a new
provision.
Three hundred and ninety-two tins of lobster were seized by Mr.
Miners in Chrisp Street. The owner was fined £5 and 30s. costs,
or 21 days' imprisonment.
Legal technicalities arose at the hearing of this last case before the
Magistrate, and I learnt so very important a lesson, that I wrote the
following letter, which was published in the Lancet and British
Medical Journal:—
"When sanitary officers are about to seize unsound food, more
especially that which is tinned, I should like to point out a legal
technicality which has arisen through the decision recently given in
the case of Regina v. Dennis. This decision, it will be remembered,
is the result of the appeal decided by eleven judges. The case
is reported at some length in the Justice of the Peace, September, 29th.
The conviction against Dennis was quashed, ten judges assenting.
Mr. Justice Mathew, the only dissenting judge, in giving his opinion,
stated: 'I do not see why, if the notice in question should be held
to exonerate the seller, a notice to the same effect set up in the shop
or on the barrow of the buyer should not be equally available to him
as an answer to proceedings for seizure, condemnation, or punishment
under the statutes.' I will now explain how this statement has