View report page

53
It will be seen from this table, in the first place how general
this Warranty defence has become in London. During the last five
years it has assumed very large proportions in some Boroughs, and
in all it has become a serious impediment to safeguarding the public
from fraud. Out of a total of 5,763 summonses, no less than 680
were lost, owing to Warranties being produced. These were all
proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. This number formed
nearly 12 per cent. of the total summonses issued. The proportions
vary amongst the different Boroughs and Cities of London from
1.5 per cent. to 43 per cent.
The reasons for this variation of the summonses in the different
Boroughs is difficult to explain. It seems to depend upon and vary
with the quantity of milk imported into the district. There are
other factors no doubt, contributing to the results referred to.
Under Section 20 (6) Sale of Food and Drugs Act, quoted
above, the local authority have power, if they have failed to get a
conviction against a purveyor using a Warranty in defence, to
prosecute the person giving the Warranty for false Warranty.
The replies to question 4 in the table give the experience of the
London Cities and Boroughs in prosecuting such Warrantors.
During the last five years, 10 Boroughs initiated proceedings
against certain vendors, with the result set out in the table. Six
of these Boroughs had to withdraw their summonses or they were
dismissed. Two other Boroughs had a single conviction each
against a Warrantor. The results obtained by the remaining
Boroughs, Bermondsey and Battersea are exceptional.
The former authority prosecuted nine persons in 1913 for false
Warranty all of whom were convicted and fined. In all these cases
the article warranted was vinegar, and the defendants local dealers.
In 1914, the Borough Council prosecuted six persons for false
Warranties, the articles adulterated in five of these cases being