View report page

January 8th, 1907.
Gentlemen, —In reference to the complaint caused by the shooting of dust on
the canal bank, nuisance, either with or without danger to health, might arise,
either from the smell given off by the decomposing animal and vegetable matter, or
by dust containing disease-producing organisms being carried into Salisbury Cottages
over the wall which separates them from the canal bank itself. It is also alleged that
owing to the defective or ill-adapted shape of the shoots, and partly to the carelessness
of the men, accumulations occur round the shoots themselves, which are
insufficiently swept up, and are allowed to remain to pollute the ground afterwards,
in addition to other possible ill effects. There are, therefore, two points for the
consideration of the Committee: — First, with regard to the process itself. I have
been there on several occasions, both when dust shooting was in progress, and also
when no shooting has been taking place, but the barges have been alongside half
full of dust, and the hatches have been off. On every occasion the smell has been
of the slightest, and were such a smell existing outside my own door I could not
swear that it was a source of nuisance to me. In the second place I am unable to
agree with the statement that injury or danger to health now exists. With the present
conditions of the weather I do not think that either of these are likely to exist,
but when the warm weather comes conditions may be altered, and one might possibly
be able to swear as to the existence of some detriment to the neighbourhood. But
at present I do not think there is sufficient evidence for us to proceed.
With regard to the accumulations, the utmost amount that I have seen has
never been much more than a large barrow load, taking all the shoots combined,
and I doubt a magistrate considering this to be a nuisance, or injurious, or dangerous
to health. As the Committee are well aware, there are special by-laws which govern
the removal of offensive matter under which is classed household refuse; and,
speaking as a layman, and not as a lawyer, it appears to me that so long as these
by-laws are carried out, the evidence as to nuisance must be very strong indeed to
secure a conviction. If local evidence of sufficient amount could be obtained to
support that which your inspectors may be able to give, no doubt a conviction could
be obtained, but I am not able to give any corroboration in this respect, and before
any further legal proceedings are taken I should advise a survey by the Committee
who will then see all the existing conditions.
(Signed) FRANCIS STEVENS, Medical Officer of Health.
Of the articles seized during the year condensed milk forms
a very large proportion. In April, Inspector Kerslake seized 1,328
tins in Belmont Buildings, the owner of which subsequently
absconded and has not yet been arrested, a warrant still being out
for his apprehension. As there was reasonable ground for supposing
that there was a large quantity of this milk still in Camberwell and
other districts, sharp look-out was kept by other Inspectors, with
the result that other seizures were made in the neighbourhood; but
Camberwell and North Peckham seemed to be the favourite localities
for the foisting of this milk on the public. We gave information to
other authorities, with the result that seizures were made in Hackney
and Southwark of this same brand of milk.
The tins that were seized came under the description of what is
technically termed "blown." In such an enormous number of tins
at was manifestly impossible to open each one, so that one is obliged
to rely on a selection of a small number, which in this case was
made at random. Of those that were opened the taste and smell of
their contents left no doubt in my mind that they were unfit for
food and should be condemned; those tins which resembled these,
so far as bulging was concerned, being seized on similar grounds.
The question of seizing unsound tinned food is one which
xi