View report page

137
(excluding the Inspector's Salary), connected with the carrying
out of the Food and Drugs Acts in Lambeth Borough during
1903, amounted to £81 0s. 5d.
The Council decided to communicate with the Home Secretary
on the subject of the inadequacy of these fines imposed.
Warranties.
One case, heard before Mr. Horace Smith at Lambeth Police
Court, was dismissed (with £2 2s. 0d. costs against the Council),
and one case withdrawn, on account of the legal difficulties in
proving satisfactorily a false warranty.
These difficulties in dealing with warranties under the Food
and Drugs Acts are increasing, and the Council, in consequence,
decided, during 1903, to draw the attention of the Local Government
Board to the anomalous position of Local Authorities in
regard to the use or abuse of warranties, asking the Board to
promote legislation with a view to putting the Law in a clear and
more equitable position. Sections 25 of the 1875 Act, and 20 of
the 1899 Act, are the Warranty Sections, and it has been held
that proceedings must be taken within 6 months from the date of
the warranty, as decided recently in a case in the High Court
(vide Whittaker v. Pomfret Brothers). Further, where there are
successive warranties, proceedings must be taken in the district
where such successive warranties are given (vide Manners v.
Taylor, 1902). The difficulties in reaching the real offenders are
apparent. Formerly, under Section 25 of the 1875 Act a written
warranty was a good defence, provided the vendor satisfied the
Court that he sold the substance in the same condition (nature,
substance and quality) as he received it, and had no reason to
believe that the commodity was otherwise than as warranted.
Where a false warranty was given, proceedings could be taken
(Section 27 of the 1875 Act), but only in the place where the
contract or warranty was executed—a most expensive procedure,
which was altered by Section 20 of the 1899 Act. By this last
Act 1899, proceedings can be taken with respect to a false