View report page

60
APPENDIX S.
RAG FLOCK ACT, 1911.
Eight samples of rag flock were taken during the
year. In two cases the standard of cleanliness required
by the Regulations was infringed. Matters were speedily
remedied upon the facts being brought to the notice of
the dealer.
The position with regard to the question of the
cleanliness of stuffing materials used in the manufacture
of bedding still remains in a very unsatisfactory condition
from every point of view, e.g. (1) A proper definition
of what is "rag flock" has never yet been
attempted; (2.) A mattress maker who re-made a mattress
with the original flock in the original cover, the flock not
having been cleaned and being in a filthy condition, committed
no offence (Gamble v. Jordan); on the other hand
in a similar case where the flock was put into a new cover
the maker was held to have contravened the statute
(Guildford Corporation v. Brown). In a further case
heard during the year a second-hand dealer who dealt
in bedding the flock of which contained seven times the
quantity of chlorine allowed by the Regulations was held
to have committed no offence; i.e., he did not in the
ordinary sense of the words sell flock manufactured
from rags (Cooper v. Evan Cook's Depositories).