View report page

81
rence of the nuisance, and that the evidence proved a
continuation rather than a recrudescence of the nuisance.'
The word 'recrudescence' is introduced by the Appellants,
according to those two paragraphs, as being equivalent to
what had been stated in the contention of the Respondents,
that the second nuisance was a separate and independent
occurrence unconnected with the nuisance of October 24th.
I do not think it was an apt word to express that, but it is
quite clear that that is what the Appellants used the word to
express, and the Magistrate then found as a fact, taking the
word in that sense, that it was a recrudescence, that is to say,
that it was a separate and independent occurrence unconnected
with the nuisance of 24th October, 1910. He,
therefore, finds really what was found by the Magistrate in
the case of Battersea Borough Council v. Georg, supra,
namely, that the second alleged nuisance was a separate and
independent occurrence, that there was not a recurrence of
the first nuisance, and that there had not been a failure to
comply with the notice to abate the earlier nuisance. It
seems to me that there was evidence on which he could find
that. When he once comes to those findings the case is exactly
within the case of Battersea Borough Council v. Georg, supra,
and, therefore, I agree that the appeal must be dismissed."
Avory, J.—" I agree."
Appeal Dismissed.
Food and Drugs Act. Four hundred samples have been
purchased under the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs
Acts and submitted to the Public Analyst for analysis, of
which 387 were certified to be genuine and 13 adulterated,
the adulterations thus being equivalent to 3 per cent. of the
samples taken.
Of the total number of samples purchased, 150 were
butter, of which 3 were adulterated; 165 were milk, of which
7 were certified to be adulterated; the remaining adulterated
samples were 2 of dripping, and 1 coffee.