Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hampstead Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
(a) Under Notice | 43 |
(b) Voluntary | 198 |
(i) Bakehouses | 197 |
(ii) Milk premises | 168 |
(iii) Restaurants and eating houses | 690 |
(iv) Other food premises | 1,889 |
2,944 | |
Inspections | 213 |
Inspections | 103 |
Intimation Notices served | 2,135 |
Statutory Notices served | 701 |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Nuisances under Public Health (London) Act, 1936.
In 76 instances it was found necessary to refer outstanding Statutory
Notices to the Town Clerk for the institution of legal proceedings. In
the majority of these cases a warning letter from the Town Clerk had a
salutary effect, the necessary works being executed and the notices
complied with.
In 15 instances, however, police court proceedings had to be instituted;
of these 9 were subsequently withdrawn or adjourned sine die, the works
having been completed; in 4 cases Abatement Orders were obtained
and, in the remaining 2 cases, further proceeding swere taken for noncompliance
with Court Abatement Orders. A total of £5 lines was
imposed by the Magistrates and £11 11s. costs awarded to the Council.
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1938
One summons was issued respecting the sale of beef sausages contrary
to Article 4, Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations
and the Food and Drugs Act. The Defendant was discharged absolutely
and ordered to pay £3 3s. costs.
As a result of alleged contraventions of the Food and Drugs Act,
1938, and the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, the Public Health
Committee authorised the issue of nine summonses against the proprietors
and manager of a food shop in the Borough in respect of the condicion
of the shop premises and of food and apparatus thereat. The summonses
were dismissed by the Magsitrate sitting at the Marylebone
Magistrates Court and costs were awarded against the Council.
The decision of the Court disposed of the matter, but in view of the
award of costs, the General Purposes Committee reviewed in detail the
circumstances in which these proceedings were started and the course
which they took, and reported to the Council that they were satisfied
that they were reasonably and properly brought and that the action of
the Council and its officers was in no way open to criticism.