View report page

24
Thirty-six samples submitted to the Public Analyst were all returned as genuine. The results
of the analyses of 35 of these are indicated in Table 10. The remaining sample was examined for
the possible presence of a detergent but was found to be satisfactory.

Preserved Food.—There were 111 shops, etc., on the register of premises approved for the preparation
or manufacture of preserved foods (sausages mainly) intended for sale, and 152 inspections were made.
Fried Fish Vendors and Fish Curers.—Eleven premises are used by vendors of fried fish and one by a
fish curer. Twenty-three inspections of fried fish shops and 12 inspections of the fish curer's premises
were carried out. Five notices were served in respect of fried fish shops.
Bakehouses.—There are 14 basement bakehouses on the register; 84 inspections were made, and five
bakehouses were cleansed and re-decorated after informal notice.
Legal proceedings were instituted under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, against a firm of bakers
in a case where a loaf of bread supplied to a customer had been found to contain a label. The defendants
pleaded guilty and were fined £4 0s. 0d., and £4 4s. Od. costs were allowed.
Restaurants, etc.—Premises in which meals are provided or food is sold already cooked or is prepared
for sale numbered 838, including 227 restaurants, 61 snack bars, 58 hotels, 333 staff and club canteens,
120 public houses, 12 other licensed catering establishments, 23 school and nursery canteens, and 4
coffee stalls ; 1,113 inspections were made and 45 notices served. During the year the kitchens of 13
restaurants and 2 public houses were completely reconstructed.
Legal proceedings were taken under section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, against two caterers
in respect of the dirty condition of premises used for the preparation and cooking of food for sale
to the public. A fine of £20 0s. Od. was imposed in each case, and costs of £12 12s. Od. and £10 10s. Od.
respectively awarded to the Council. In giving judgment in one of these cases the magistrate (Mr.
Geoffrey Raphael) made some pertinent remarks to the effect that in inspecting food preparation places
the Council were protecting the public who themselves had no opportunity or right to inspect restaurant
and hotel kitchens, and it was only fitting that these places should be brought up to as high a standard
as possible.