View report page

35
of moulds and that moulds were evident throughout the sponge layers. Legal proceedings against
the manufacturers resulted in an Absolute Discharge and £5 5s. Od. costs awarded to the Council.
A diner at a restaurant thought she noted a rat dropping in a dish of prawn curry and rice served
to her. She retained a portion of the meal, and subsequent examination proved her suspicion to
be correct. Investigation at the premises concerned disclosed infestation by rats, and no apparent
attempt had been made to protect the food. Summonses were issued for:
(a) failing to take reasonable steps necessary to protect food, and
(b) selling food intended for but unfit for human consumption.
Total fines of £50 with £5 5s. Od. costs resulted.
A cockroach emerged with the sauce from a bottle used at the table in a restaurant. The bottle
had been filled on the premises from a container. Some evidence of cockroach infestation was
noted during a subsequent investigation which the proprietor had apparently ignored. A fine of
£10 with £20 costs was imposed. The high costs in this case were related to the necessary attendance
of a public health inspector formerly in the employ of the City Council, who at the time of the
hearing had moved to another local authority in Scotland.
A Cornish pasty purchased at a multiple catering concern was found by the purchaser to contain
a screw. The manufacturers suggested this may have come from wooden packing cases at the
factory. At the hearing the Magistrate imposed a fine of £20 with £5 5s. Od. costs.
Pharaoh's ants were found in a ham and tomato roll. A minor infestation about which the
proprietor declared he was unaware was found at the retail premises. However, had he displayed
reasonable caution the infestation would have been noticed. The case resulted in a fine of £25
with £5 5s. Od. costs.
During the year, proceedings were also taken in respect of certain catering premises where
conditions of hygiene or other circumstances warranted legal action. Nine such cases were
involved, and fines totalling £701 with £131 5s. Od. costs were imposed in respect of 71 summonses.
Other cases for which legal proceedings had been authorised were pending at the close of the
year.
Sale of Drugs—Fraudulent Substitution—Legal Proceedings
A complaint was made to the Health Department alleging that a firm of manufacturing chemists
with headquarters in Westminster were supplying in capsule form a drug wrongly claimed to be
"ampicillin", an antibiotic protected by patents and sold under the registered trade name of "Penbritin".
The substance being supplied was alleged to be penicillin V, a different and cheaper antibiotic
which would be unsuitable for conditions for which ampicillin would be prescribed.
It was established that the defendants did not sell their products from their head office in
Westminster but enquiries disclosed that the controlling director held a similar position with two
retail pharmacies in Westminster. Formal samples of the capsules were taken on prescriptions
from both these pharmacies. The canisters from which the capsules were dispensed were those
of the pharmaceutical research laboratories where ampicillin is manufactured and bore their
registered trade name.
The samples were submitted to the Public Analyst. One was found to be genuine, but the other
was penicillin V instead of ampicillin which was the drug demanded.
Investigations following the receipt of this adverse report were extremely involved and covered
several months of intense enquiry in an effort to trace the source of the capsules. Enquiries ranged
from Durham to Dorset and involved co-operation with H.M. Customs in the search for possible
suppliers abroad. They also included visits to capsule manufacturers and fillers.
Summons were issued against the defendants for the following contraventions:—
(1) Selling to the prejudice of the purchaser a drug not of the substance demanded by the
purchaser.
(2) Having in their possession for sale certain goods to which a certain trade mark was falsely
applied.
(3) That at their premises they did falsely apply a certain description to goods.
The defendants introduced a firm of wholesale suppliers into the action under the provisions of