View report page

110
human food is dressed in the usual way, and sent into a public market or
shop, it is intended for human food, and such presumption should stand until
refuted by the trader.
Suggestion No. 2.—"In the event of a seizure, the owner to have an
"opportunity of submitting evidence on his behalf when application is
"made for a condemnation order by the Magistrate."
There is nothing in the Public Health Act to prevent the owner appearing
and being heard as to condemnation, and, as a matter of fact, in the City he is
always advised by telegram of the fact that such a seizure has been made.
Suggestion No. 3.—"Magistrates granting condemnation order should
"be disqualified from adjudicating at the hearing of the summons relating
"thereon."
With regard to this, one point is certain, and that is, that when cases are
tried before the Magistrate who condemns the meat there is a great advantage
in the saving of time, and in dealing fairly with the case, by reason of the
Magistrate having actual personal knowledge of the facts.
Suggestion No. 4.—The repeal of Section 47 (4), which provides
that "where a person convicted of an offence under this Section
"has been within twelve months previously convicted of an offence
"under this Section, the Court may, if it thinks fit, and finds that
"he knowingly and wilfully commits both such offences, order that
"a notice of the facts be affixed in such form and manner, and for
"such period not exceeding twenty-one days, as the Court may order, to
"any premises occupied by that person, and that the person do pay
"the cost of such affixing, and if any person obstruct the fixing of such
"notice, or remove, deface or conceal the notice while affixed during the
"said period, he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding
"five pounds."
It is' perfectly true that this would be a serious matter for any trader, but
obviously this would only be made use of when the offence was a very serious
one, and the issue of such order is entirely within the discretion of the Court.
Suggestion No. 5 seeks to apply the provisions, Section 47 (8), of the
Public Health Act, 1891, to the whole of the country.
With this the Corporation is not concerned.
Suggestion No. 6.—The exemption of a Manager from responsibility,
"where it can be proved he had received specific and emphatic instruc"tions
to comply with the requirements of the Public Health Act."
There are grave objections to the transfer of liability. A trader must be
responsible for the acts of his servants, and to allow loose words like "specific
"and emphatic instructions to comply with the requirements of the Public