View report page

96
According to the decision of the magistrates, given below,6 of those underground
and 2 of the above ground are not to be reckoned as bakehouses,
so that the correct number at the end of the year is 12 above ground
and 71 underground. All the bakehouses were inspected, and cleansing
carried out twice a year. In several instances there was some delay in
having the work done, and proceedings were threatened. Two bakers
were also warned that they were not keeping the floors, &c., as clean as
they ought to do.
Bakehouses in Hotels.—In 1907 it was discovered that a place for
baking bread had been built underground at the Ititz Hotel. It was
contended that it was not a bakehouse under the Factory and Workshop
Act (1901), but part of the kitchen. The matter was submitted to
Mr. Mead, at Marlborough Street Police Court, and he gave a considered
judgment on April 2nd, 1908, dismissing the case without costs.
The subjoined extract deals with the principal points in his judgment:—
" The prohibition is 'An underground bakehouse shall not be used
as a bakehouse unless it was so used at the passing of this Act.' It is
conceded by the Defence that literally this is an underground bakehouse
; but it is contended it does not fall within either definition which
might be applicable. To take what I considered was the wider definition,
that is Sub-section 23 of the Schedule where the interpretation is
bakehouse, that is to say, any place in which are baked bread, biscuits,
or confectionery from the baking or sale of which a profit is derived,
I considered the baking was to meet those cases where provisions
were taken to a bakehouse and were there baked, and where nothing
was sold. Those circumstances do not arise here at all, therefore it
seems to me I can eliminate that part of the Section altogether. But
even supposing it applied, I do not think there was any profit in this
case from the baking, because I think it means a direct profit, and
there is nothing to show on the books, or anything else, that there was
a profit derived from the baking. Of course there was an indirect
profit, if there is a profit in the hotel at all, because that is part of the
general business, and the general business, we may assume, results in a
profit. The next point is: Supposing the expression 'baking' is
eliminated, whether there is any sale, and I am clearly of opinion that
there was no sale. First of all, I must look at what is the substantial
•object of this bakehouse. It is not for the sale of bread. The substantial
object is not for the sale of bread in any sense at all, because
only a quarter of the bread baked is supplied to the customers, the
remaining three-quarters is consumed by the servants, therefore the
substantial object of the bakery is to supply the servants and not to
supply the customers. (The Queen v. Gardner, Ct. Cr. Cases Resd.,
25 "Law Journal," Magistrates' Cases, p. 100.)