View report page

53
established the business of a knacker within the meaning of the
Slaughter Houses (Metropolis) Act, 1874, and, therefore, they did not
feel it necessary to take proceedings as suggested, your Vestry, on the
recommendation of the Special Purposes Committee, requested the
Board to reconsider their decision, and in support of this application
reminded them that, according to the 12th section of the Act,
"knacker" means a person whose business it is to slaughter horses,
&c.," and that by section 13 of the Act, a business is deemed to
be established anew if it is removed from any one set of premises to
any other premises. It was stated to be capable of proof—(1) That
Mr. Tedder had been accustomed to slaughter horses in great numbers at
his premises in Blechynden Mews: (2) That he had entered upon
the occupation of the said premises since the passing of the said
Act; and (3) That he holds no license under section 94 of the
25th and 26th Vict., c. 102 (Metropolis Local Management Amendment
Act), for the keeping or using of any place in the parish of
Kensington for the purpose of killing horses. "Thus" (your Vestry's
communication continued) "as Mr. Tedder slaughters horses without
a license, and at a place not licensed for the slaughtering of horses,
and as he did not occupy the said place at the passing of the
Slaughter Houses (Metropolis) Act, the Vestry consider that his
proceedings are in contravention of the law. Agreeing with the Board
that it is desirable to put a stop to the illicit slaughtering of horses,
as it tends to spread disease by keeping the occurrence of cases of
glanders, &c., from the knowledge of the Board, the Vestry hopes
that the Board may yet see their way to proceed against Mr. Tedder,
and put a stop to his unlawful business."
The Board subsequently intimated to your Vestry, that if evidence
were forthcoming to prove that Mr. Tedder had slaughtered horses in
considerable numbers, and that he had entered upon the occupation of
his premises since the passing of the Act, they would institute proceedings
as suggested. But, as they stated at the same time that
Mr. Tedder had now wholly discontinued his unlawful business—which
appeai-ed to be the case, and the object of your Vestry's interposition
had thus been effected—the matter was not further pressed.
I may perhaps be pardoned for mentioning here that "The Lords of
the Council" tendered me their thanks for the action I took in cone
2