View report page

32
ants of the neighbourhood, and that the person carrying on such
business shall not have used the best practicable means for abating
such nuisance, or preventing or counteracting such effluvia,
the person so offending shall, upon a summary conviction for such
offence, forfeit and pay a sum of not more than Five Pounds nor
less than Forty Shillings, and upon a second conviction for such
offence the sum of Ten Pounds, and for each subsequent conviction
a sum double the amount of the penalty imposed for the last
preceding conviction, but the highest amount of such penalty
shall not in any case exceed the sum of Two Hundred Pounds."
Several prosecutions were undertaken successfully—fines [varying
from Forty Shillings to Five Pounds (including costs) being inflicted.
The steps already taken will, it is hoped, prove sufficient,
and render unnecessary any further appeal to the law, especially
as a notice of your Vestry's intention to proceed against offenders
in every case has been widely distributed in the Potteries.
Twenty-four convictions were obtained against old offenders for
keeping swine in an improper locality, and Mr. Bridge, one of the
magistrates at the Hammersmith police-court, announced his intention
of throwing on the defendants in any future cases that
might be brought before him, the onus of proving that the pigs
were not on the premises on days intervening between the days
for which the defendants might be summoned for the offence of
keeping pigs in a place under the ban of a " prohibitory order," the
penalty for this offence being Ten Shillings a day. Hitherto we
have been required to prove the presence of swine on each day,
so that, for example, to obtain in one week penalties to the amount
of three pounds, it was necessary to visit the prohibited premises
every day in the week. But if Mr. Bridge should feel justified in
carrying out his views, it would only be necessary to visit the
premises on Monday and Saturday to obtain the same amount of
penalties which would be imposed, unless the defendant should be
able to prove that the pigs were not on the premises on the intervening
days, viz., Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
The proprietor of a licensed slaughter-house in the Potteries,
Notting-hill, was fined in the sum of Ten pounds and costs for
having on the premises the carcase of a cow, diseased and unfit
for human food. The cow had been brought dead from another
place, and after seizure it was stated that the carcase was not intended
for food. But it was dressed in the usual way, and the
meat having been condemned by Mr. Ingham, proceedings were
taken before Mr. Bridge, with the result above stated, the magistrate
ruling that the fact of the carcase being in the slaughterhouse
was sufficient evidence of the intention to pass it off as food
for man. The cow, it may be added, having died, or been killed, at
a licensed cow-shed in the same locality, I pointed out to the
licensee the great impropriety of his proceedings, and the risk he
would run of losing his license, to say nothing of other conse
quences, on a repetition of his indiscretion. Subsequently, I
received notice from the proprietor of a licensed