View report page

54
of boric acid or a preparation thereof. Legal proceedings were taken in 22, or 88 per
per cent., of the cases of adulteration, in all of which convictions were obtained. In
one case margarine was exposed for sale without being duly labelled, and the defendant
was fined £2.
The penalties inflicted in the cases in which convictions were obtained for infringments
of the Acts in respect to butter and margarine amounted to £84 5s., which gives
an average of a little over 18 per cent, of the maximum penalty per case as compared
with 17 per cent, for 1902. Including costs the amount imposed for each conviction
averaged about £4 10s., as compared with £4 Is. in 1902. .
Two of the samples of lard were adulterated. In each case proceedings were
taken, and a conviction was obtained in one of them. All the samples of cheese were
genuine as were also the samples of cod liver oil. Of the 27 samples of spirits, 26
were genuine, and in the case of the other it was not deemed advisable to prosecute.
The sample contained excess of water, but there was a warning tablet as to the water
contained in the spirits exposed in the place where the sample was purchased. The
sample of oil of lemon was not as prescribed by the British Pharmacopoea, but it was
not thought advisable to prosecute. Six of the samples of Demerara sugar were not
genuine, and proceedings were successfully instituted in each case. One of the 6
samples of coffee was not genuine, but proceedings were not taken there being only
about 1 per cent, of chicory present which was regarded as an accidental admixture.
With respect to the prosecutions which did not succeed, in 5 instances the
summonses were withdrawn. In 2 on account of the production of warranties, in
two because the reserve samples had become useless for the purpose of evidence, and in
the remaining one because there were good grounds for believing that the milk was sold
to the purchaser in the same state as supplied by the contractor. In 2 cases of
milk prosecution the summonses were dismissed, in one case with one guinea costs
against the Council; the defence being a warranty in each case. In one instance in
which his certificate was questioned, the analyst gave evidence, but the magistrate
thought it would be sufficient to allow the Council the costs of the analysis and
summons and no penalty was inflicted. It is to be noted that all the above were in
respect to milk samples. The unsuccessful prosecution in the case of one of
the samples of adulterated lard, resulted from there being some doubt in the mind of
the magistrate as to whether the article in question was exposed for sale as lard.
At the meeting of the Borough Council on December 15th last, Mr. Alderman
Sawell drew attention to certain statistics relating to food and drugs adulteration contained
in a report which was adopted by the London County Council, on December 8th.
They refer to the year 1902, and from them the subjoined figures are quoted to
shew the position of Shoreditch for that year in this respect.