View report page

226
Report of the Medical Officer of Health.
In the proceedings which subsequently followed the proprietor
pleaded ignorance of the law, saying that he had no idea that the
new Act applied to old bedding.
The Magistrate stated that he had read the Act as meaning
that it was unlawful to make or remake bedding if the flock was not
up to the standard. The defendant was fined 5s. and 22s. 6d.
costs.
Sample 6. Jn this case the Inspector, on visiting the workshop,
found the defendant upholstering a couch and a sample of the flock
used for stuffing was taken. This on analysis was found to contain
326 parts of chlorine per 100,000 parts of flock. This undoubtedly
filthy flock was being used in stuffing new furniture.
At the hearing of the summons the defendant stated that she
had bought an old bed from a neighbour for 2s. and used the flock
for upholstering, and that she had no knowledge that she was
doing wrong.
The Magistrate said that he thought the practice of buying old
beds was a very bad one as it was possiole that the bed had been
used by a patient with a discharge, and it was unpleasant to think
that a purchaser was getting the flock in new furniture. He also
remarked that it was no wonder that such an Act as the Rag Flock
Act was passed.
The defendant was fined 10s. and 15s. costs.
Sample 7. In this case the flock was found in the defendant's
workshop.
An analysis of the flock showed that it contained 329 parts
of chlorine per 100,000 parts of flock.
At the Police Court the defendant failed to satisfy the Magistrate
that the flock was not intended for use for the purposes of
bedding and upholstery.
The defendant was fined 10s. and 15s. costs.