View report page

61 [1926
were imported. The defendant's manager and assistant, both at the time and
in Court, maintained that no offence had been committed, as no written label had
been used. With the remark that the defendant had been too clever, the
Magistrate convicted. In other cases, the word "imported" has been written
on the back of the label, or else in small letters at the foot so as to be concealed
by the eggs.
In Islington this work, with the exception of two prosecutions, has been
undertaken with other duties by one Inspector only. In addition to these prosecutions
there have been innumerable verbal warnings, and a great many letters
written to offenders. It has been found that when a new tradesman moves into
Islington, until he is warned, he adopts the slack methods bordering on, if not
actually wilfully deceptive which he has utilised, in the place he has come from,
without check. We have thus forced upon us in Islington the practical futility
of the provisions of this Order if they are not to be generally enforced on our
borders.
Proof is as I have stated, often a difficult matter, and has to be obtained by
indirect means—e.g., the invoicing of the eggs to the retailer as imported, and
the knowledge that these same imported eggs have been incorrectly described
accordingly to the provisions of the Order. Undoubtedly, not only are eggs
misdescribed, but frequently foreign and home eggs are mixed. The difficulty
surrounding identification of the foreign egg could be overcome if each
foreign egg were required to be marked, before importation, in some simple
manner. This would prevent deception, or, at least, provide the means of
identification if wrongly labelled, or if mixed with home produce. When one
considers the number of warnings that have been issued in Islington and the
number of successful prosecutions, one cannot conceive that the tradesmen in
other places are more particular in carrying out the provisions of the Order. The
effective remedy would appear to be, as I have said, an efficient but simple system
of marking before importation. This would be simpler than the method' of distinguishing
home produce by marking which was advocated in a letter to "The
Times," of February 8th, 1926, from a Sussex writer.
During the year 1926 four summonses were taken in respect of eggs
improperly labelled. Convictions were obtained in each case, and fines with cost
amounting to £16 Os. Od., were imposed.