View report page

113
some extent misled by an alleged statement of an Inspector of the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries, I addressed a communication to that Board, as a similar
case had been brought to their notice in January, 1907, and up to the present no
satisfactory arrangement had been made. It was ascertained that the statement of
the sender of the meat as to having been misled by an officer of the Board was not
borne out; and that the legal owner of the meat was in no way implicated in the
transaction.
Meat Case, No. 11.
On the 17th December, 1909, two pigs, extensively diseased and quite unfit for
food, with evidence of attempt at concealment, were seized in the Central Market.
It was found on investigation that these pigs were the property of a man "C," who
stated that he killed them because "they seemed a bit sickly," and sent them to a
man "M," and told him he could do what he liked with them. This man "M"
forwarded them to a third man "W," who states that without his seeing them his man
"E" had forwarded them to London.
The evidence as to the condition of the carcases was quite clear. This was
forwarded to the City Solicitor, who states that he regrets to say "that it appears
"this is another case in which the consignor was not the person to whom the meat
"belonged. The owner of the two pigs was a farmer, one 'C.' He killed them,
"and sent the carcases to a butcher, 'M,' who sent them to another butcher, 'W,'
"in Ipswich, and his man sent the carcases to London. 'W' did not see them, or
"know that they had been sent, and neither of the others named had anything to
"do with sending them ; further, there was no privity between 'C' and 'W'"
It is obviously unsatisfactory that the only person who can be proceeded
against in offences of this nature is the person to whom the animal or article
belongs or did belong at the time of sale or deposit for sale, such a provision
leaving a loophole for anyone to send diseased meat to the Markets without
fear of legal consequences.
At my suggestion a representation was made to the Local Government
Board urging them to consider the advisability of section 47 (sub-section 2)
of the Public Health (London) Act, so as to render liable to proceedings any
person, whether the owner or otherwise, by whose instrument or by whose act
such meat is sold or exposed for sale or deposited for the purpose of sale, or for
preparation for sale.
If the suggested alterations were to be effected, the chance of successful
defiance of the Statute, such as those referred to above, would be eliminated,
and the guilty person would then receive the punishment for his acts that the
law intended.
A clause giving effect to this modification of the Public Health Act has
been inserted in the City of London (General Powers) Bill now before
Parliament.