View report page

8
The summons was taken out against the father as head of
the household, and was heard at the Edmonton Petty Sessions.
The Bench held that there was no legal proof that the father was
aware of the nature of the disease. A summons was then taken
out against the mother, and, by consent, made returnable forthwith,
when the Bench held that if the charge were pressed a
conviction must undoubtedly follow. The Bench having intimated
that it appeared desirable that this should satisfy the
object of the prosecution, the Council's solicitor acted accordingly
and the charge was not further pressed. The Act however as
regards householders notifying remains a dead letter.
The second case was one in which a medical practitioner
was prosecuted for delay in notification.
The facts which led up to this prosecution are briefly as
follows: Several cases had occurred in the practice of the defendant
in which notification had been unduly delayed, and as to
which letters of caution had been written to the defendant by
the clerk to the Council. The defendant replied to the last of
these letters in terms verging very closely on the impertinent,
and he was then formally warned that on the next complaint
legal proceedings would be taken.
The occasion for complaint shortly afterwards arose, a case
of scarlet fever occurred at an Industrial School of which the
defendant is medical officer, and a certificate to that effect was
signed by him on June 8th. for the purpose of sending the case
to hospital. The case came to my knowledge in an indirect
manner, and no notification certificate was received by me from
the defendant until June 14th, after I had reported the fact of
non-notification to the Council.
A summons was issued and was heard at the Edmonton
Petty Sessions on July 4th.
The prosecution was conducted by the clerk to the Council
but the defendant was represented by a special pleader.
An initial objection was taken to the wording of the
summons, in that the words "immediately on becoming aware"
were used instead of "forthwith on becoming aware." This
quibble was, however, over-ruled by the Bench, and the prosecution
was proceeded with. Some points of no general interest
were raised in cross-examination, and the defendant was convicted
and fined 10s. and costs.