View report page

23
BLACK SMOKE.
In the case of Tough v. Hopkins, it was decided that the
funnel of a steamer is a chimney within Section 24 (b) of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891; and that where all that is
required to prevent nuisance is careful stoking, it is unnecessary
in a prohibition order under Section 5 to specify any works to
be executed.
DESTRUCTION OF INFECTED CLOTHING.
The important appeal case of Crolick v. Knottingley Urban
District Council (Knight's Loc. Gov. Rep. 1904, 1345) heard
before Lord Alverstone, C.J., clearly shows that the power of
destruction of infected clothing under the 121st Section of the
Public Health Act, 1875, cannot be exercised by a Medical
Officer of Health on his own initiative. A special resolution of
the Authority is required in each case, and then only can the
owner claim compensation from the Authority. In the Metropolitan
Area, however, Section 60 of the Public Health (London)
Act gives more extensive powers to the Medical Officer of Health,
and therefore the decision does not precisely apply.
THE MARGARINE ACT.
A Metropolitan Police Magistrate dismissed a case in which
the Local Authority prosecuted a seller of margarine under the
labelling Section (Sec. 6). The margarine was taken from an
unlabelled tub standing in full view of the customers. The
Magistrate decided that having regard to the mode in which it
was used, it being only used as a store for margarine, it was not
a package within the meaning of Section 6 of the Margarine Act.
The court decided, seeing the object of the Margarine Act,
1877, that the learned magistrate had arrived at a wrong conclusion,
and that respondent should have been convicted (Macnair
v. Horon.)
COPPER IN PEAS.
In the case of Firend v. Mapp it was decided that preserved
peas coloured with copper sulphate (2.55 grains to the pound) a
quantity insufficient to cause injury to health, were of the nature,
quality, and substance demanded, and were therefore not adulterated
under Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
In the case of Hull v. Horsnell the analyst certified that a
bottle of preserved peas contained copper equal to copper
sulphate in the proportion of 187 per lb., and he stated in
evidence that sulphate of copper is a substance injurious to health.
The court sent the case back to the Magistrates with a direction
that the finding that the added ingredient is in itself injurious to
health is insufficient, it must be found that the article of food has
been rendered injurious to health by such addition.