View report page

150
"by one Local Authority cannot take samples in any but his own
"district, he is therefore unable to ascertain what farmer (if any) is at
"fault.
"There is a general concensus of opinion among the Metropolitan
"Borough Councils as to the urgent necessity for the repeal of these
"clauses.
"In July, 1904, at a conference convened by the London County
"Council, on the administration of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891,
"and the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, Ac., attended by delegates repre"senting
some twenty-five of the Metropolitan Sanitary Authorities, it
"was resolved that Section 25 of the Act of 1875, and Section 20 of the
"Act of 1899, operated to the prejudice of the purchaser and of the
"public health, and ought to be repealed.
"This view is one that has been always held by the Corporation of
"London, and is further confirmed by the following quotation from the
"report of the Intelligence Division, addressed to the Secretary of the
"Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and dated the 5th June, 1905:—
"'Numerous representations have been received from Local
"'Authorities, particularly the Metropolitan Borough Councils, as
"'to the operation of the warranty sections in the Foods and
"'Drugs Acts. Two recent decisions have tended to weaken their
"'position with regard to proceedings under these sections.
"'In Whitaker v. Pomfret Brothers, February, 1902, it was laid
"'down that no proceedings can be taken under Section 20 of the
"'Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1899 in respect of false warranty
"'when such warranty was given more than six months before the
"'commencement of the proceedings.
"'In the case of milk, it has been suggested that the period of
"'six months runs, not from the date of the warranty, but from
"'the date on which the warranted milk was delivered, but not"'withstanding
this suggestion, many Local Authorities regard
"'this case as a serious obstacle to proceedings under the warranty
"'sections.
"1 Another decision which is regarded as an obstacle is that given
"'in Manners v. Tyler, May, 1902. Section 20, Sub-section (5)
"'of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, provided that
"'proceedings under the warranty sections of the Acts may be
"'taken as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where
"'the article of food or drug to which the warranty relates
"'was purchased as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place
"'where the warranty was given. In Manners v. Tyler it was
"'decided that this provision applies only to the first or immediate