View report page

96
Of the 17 prosecutions it will be seen that only one was dismissed.
(This was the last case, quoted on page 95, in which Inspector Billing,
on entering a factory, found a number of tins of salmon open on a table
where mixing was going on. These tins were unsound and unlit for food.
They were part of a consignment of 11 cases, of 48 tins each, all of which
were examined by me and found to be unsound. They were therefore all
seized, and condemned by the magistrate sitting at the Clerkenwell Police
Court. We left four tins behind at the owners' request, and we took four
tins, also unsound, which were remaining from a previous case sent as a
sample—of the same consignment. The other 44 tins of the sample case
had been used for food. The presumption was that they also were
unsound, and that the remainder of the consignment was about to be used
in the same way as the sample had been used. Tt seemed to me that under
all the circumstances the onus of proof that the same were not intended
for the food of man rested with the owner (Public Health (London) Act,
1891, Sec. 47 (i).) It should be added that the whole consignment bore
evidence of not being first-class goods. The tins were all unlabelled ; most
of them were "blown " ; they had all been pricked and resoldered ; they
all contained a pellet ol' lead in the fish substance ; and four which were
analysed by Mr. Colwell contained the antiseptic formalin. Further, the
owner admitted obtaining this consignment at a cost much below market
price. I was present at the seizure, and was unable to obtain from the
owners any satisfactory explanation of the presence of these tins with other
salmon, which was good, on the mixing table. The position taken up by
the defendant was that these tins which were seized were waiting for
inspection by the head of the firm, and were, therefore, not "deposited for
the purpose of sale, or of preparation for sale, and not intended for the
food of man." I do not assert that this was not so ; but it is my duty to
state that 44 tins of this same consignment had already been used for the
manufacture of the potted salmon. Further, there was ample provision in
the factory for examining tinned goods elsewhere than in the mixing room,
and in actual fact the owners admitted on examining the sample ease that
the condition of the salmon was not first class—yet it was used. The facts
were placed before the Public Health Committee in due course, and the
heads of the firm attended the Committee and made a long statement on
their behalf None of the facts, as above stated, were disputed. The
Committee, not being satisfied with the defendants' explanation, instructed
a prosecution. At the trial these various facts were put in, and after a
somewhat prolonged hearing, the learned magistrate (E. T. d'Eyncourt,
Esq.) dismissed the case as unproved, but without costs against the
Council, as, in his opinion, the case had been rightly taken. The learned
magistrate expressed the view that whatever presumption there might be,
and whatever carelessness was evident on the part of the firm, he was
satisfied by the defendants that there was not the actual intention to use
the remainder of the consignment, namely that seized, for human food.]
The Table on the following page shows the amount and character
of the food confiscated during 1904. About 80 per cent, of the
total meat surrendered was of foreign origin (chiefly Dutch and
American).