View report page

15
of advice or assistance, does not seem to fill the requirements of a
central sanitary authority at all.
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS.
201 Samples of food and drugs were taken and submitted to
the public analyst, Mr. Stokes, during the year. This is a larger
number of samples than has ever been taken in this parish in any
previous year. The samples consisted of—butter 67, milk 72,
coffee 11, cheese 3, arrowroot 6, pepper 4, mustard 6, flour 5,
sugar 2, chocolate 2, oatmeal 2, cocoa 2, camphorated oil 3, citric
acid 3, oil of juniper 1, eucalyptus oil 1, glycerine 1, disinfectant
powder 1, bread 2, cocoa powder 2, water 4, and cornflour 1. As
in previous years the dairy trade takes an easy first place in the
list of fraudulent trading, 13 of the " milks" and 28 of the
" butters " having been adulterated. All the runaining samples
were certified as genuine. With regard to the adulterated samples,
44 summonses were issued and fines ranging from 5s. to £20 were
imposed. The sum of £272 10s. 6d., £52 5s. 6d. of which were
costs, were recovered from the various defaulters and paid into the
Vestry's account. In one case I had reason to suppose that the
defendant, a retail shopkeeper, had himself been imposed upon by
the wholesale trader, and that he sold our agent the mixture just
as he bought it, believing it to be butter. The Court was so informed,
no conviction was recorded against the defendant, and he
was only ordered to pay our costs, £2 14s. 6d. He thanked the
magistrate and myself most profusely and rewarded our kindness
by subsequently absconding without paying the money. One
vendor of milk was fined £3 and £2 2s. costs for refusing to serve
milk from a second can on his barrow. He absconded, but had
his journey for nought, for with some little trouble we found him
and recovered the fine. R. R. and M. R., of 61, Old Bethnal
Green Road, were fined respectively £2 and £3 3s. costs and £1
and £1 1s. costs for assaulting Inspector Henley and preventing
his taking a sample of butter purchased by an agent from their
shop. In this case Mr. Henley acted in a most correct and proper
manner under circumstances of the greatest possible provocation.
The case of J. H, 2, Lisbon Street, was somewhat remarkable on
account of the fact that defendant on receipt of our summons
issued one against his assistant for not obeying his instructions as
to the sale of margarine, representing that he did all in his power
to carry out the Act properly. As soon as I had notice of this I
caused a number of purchases to be made and kept observation on
the Bhop in order to ascertain the accuracy of the story set up.
By the date of hearing I had provided for the Counsel
then acting for the Vestry sufficient material for turning the