View report page

59
Thirteen boxes of fish and 40 cases of fruit examined at
the request of the owners were condemned and destroyed.
Proceedings were taken against a tradesman in Kings Road
in respect of some unsound meat which was found on his
premises, and a fine of £15 was imposed. The defendant
subsequently appealed against the decision of the magistrate
on the ground that the proceedings had not been authorised by
the Council.
In this case (Giebler v. Manning), a Sanitary Inspector
under the Council visited the premises of the appellant, who
was a pork and beef butcher in Kings Road, and found in the
boiling house some decomposing meat which he seized and at
once brought before the magistrate who condemned it and
ordered it to be destroyed. A summons under Section 47 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, was, on the same
afternoon, granted to the Inspector on behalf of the Council,
but before applying for the summons he did not report the
facts to the borough council or any committee appointed by
them. He had never received any express authority by resolution
or in writing, general or special, from the Council or from
the committee authorising him to make complaints or take
proceedings on their behalf. It was contended before the
magistrate that by Section 107 (3) of the Public Health Act it
was necessary that the inspector should report to the sanitary
authority, and that they should authorise their Inspector to
apply for a summons and act as prosecutor against the alleged
offender. No such report was made, nor did the Borough
Council or any Committee expressly direct or authorise the
Inspector to make the complaint and take the proceedings.
The magistrate was of the opinion "that the reports required
by Section 107 (3) were confined to (a) nuisances discovered by
the Inspectors themselves under Section 1 or other sections;
(b) inquiries by them into complaints, which were made as to
nuisances and offences against the statute and against statutory
by-laws by private individuals under (amongst other) Sections
3 and 21, and as stated in evidence at the hearing these two
classes of reports were always made, and as a fact consequent