View report page

61
In case No. 59, the defendant proved that a label had
been placed on the margarine and that it had fallen
down. In cases Nos. 126 and 138 the summonses were
dismissed on the grounds that the person who actuallyserved
the milk should have been summoned, whereas
the managers of the respective businesses were proceeded
against. The magistrate refused leave to appeal, but the
Board obtained a mandamus to compel a case to be
stated. During the interval, however, in the case of
"Brown v Foote" heard in the Queen's Bench Division
the same point had been decided, and as the magistrate
subsequently convicted the employer or manager in
similar cases, the Board did not proceed further in the
matter. The summons in case No. 202 was withdrawn
at the suggestion of the magistrate, as he did not approve
of the manner in which the sample was procured for
analysis. In one case (a medical prescription) the
chemist's assistant took up and kept the bottle of medicine
on being told that it was to be analysed. He afterwards
attended before the Board and apologised and
after consideration of all the circumstances the Board
decided not to take proceedings in the matter.