View report page

63
the defendants. It can hardly be contended that tallow melting
under the Act of 1891 means something different or more comprehensive
than tallow melting under the Acts of 1848 and 1875.
As to what it was understood to mean under the Act of 1848,
guidance may be obtained from the dicta of Mr. Justice Erle and
Mr. Justice Wills in "Wanstead Local Board of Health v. Hill,
13 C.B.N.S., 479." Justice Erle said all the trades mentioned
dealt with specific substances which were or must necessarily
become in themselves offensive. Similar dicta are to be found
in the judgment of Justice Wills. It is clear from their observations
which are made inter alia in reference to what is called
tallow melting under the Act are not applicable to businesses
such as the defendant company's, or with the substances with
which they deal. In my opinion, tallow melting under the Public
Health (London) Act, as Mr. Justice Erle said, makes the
business ejusdem generis with the other trades specified—that is
to say, trades in which substances are dealt with which in the
ordinary course are of an offensive character, and that it does not
apply to the preparation of an article of food manufactured entirely
from pure, wholesome materials. The business of this company
is analogous to the making of dripping, which is said to be
practised by many butchers, and which appears to be essentially
different from tallow melting under this Act. Tallow from which
candles are made may be stale or putrid, because it is cheaper,
and practically as well adapted for the purpose, and the distinction
between the business of oleo making and tallow melting,
then, is this: that the former is the manufacture of an article of
food from pure materials, and with scrupulous regard to cleanliness,
while the article intended for candles could not be intended
for food, and in a dirty condition, and almost invariably of impure