View report page

1932]
58
finding their way out of the drains and sewers by way of an uncovered ventilating
pipe to the drain. The only parts of the building which seemed to be affected
were the kitchen and a workshop, which were not very much over-run. It was
suggested that the windows leading into the building from the roofs should be
closed during the time there were no attendants in that part of the building.
These matters were attended to, and we were later informed that no further rats
had been seen. Traps, however, were set about the building to catch any stray
rats which might come. As there is a railway close to the establishment, and there
was a possibility of rats also coming from there, it was recommended that the
gateways be protected at the bottom by iron meshing.
At the same time as this investigation was going on, we received complaints
of rats from buildings adjacent to a refuse depot, and it was found that rats were
gaining access to adjacent properties through holes in the walls underneath the
footings of the buildings, which were very old. This was remedied by a protective
course of bricks, put in below the footings, and concrete, and the walls were
repaired. Upon subsequent visitation to the premises from which the complaints
came, we were told that the protective measures had proved successful. The depot
in question is in direct communication with the railway, and it was found upon
making enquiries at the depot that it would be inexpedient to put down poison for
the following very interesting reason. This depot is visited by a number of cats
and dogs from the neighbourhood, a curious but easily explained association. One
would have thought that cats and dogs would not be in agreement, but here they
have a common interest, they greatly assist in keeping down the rat trouble, and
because of their assistance, which is considered to be of great value, it is not
expedient to use poison. Traps are, however, in continual use at the depot, looked
after by the foreman and his men.

MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER, 1926.
Under this Order, 8 summonses were taken against 6 individuals or firms (in
two cases there being two summonses). Two summonses were for filling milk
bottles in the street. In spite of frequent warnings, the habit of doing this, which
is contrary to the law, persists, the individuals taking the risk when they think
they are safe, presuming no Inspector is about. It is obvious that such craftiness
in avoiding the law is difficult to detect, and only a very small proportion is found
out. One company was fined £5 for failing to cleanse vessels and appliances.
One summons was for carrying on the trade of purveyor of milk without being
registered; three summonses for using premises as dairies contrary to the Order
were successful; (in one case a fine of £20 was inflicted, with £5 5s. Od. costs, in
another a fine of £5, and the third was dismissed on payment of £1 1s. 0d. costs).