View report page

69
is now at an end in Kensington, though a few pigs are still found from
time to time in some of the private mewses in this parish—not in styes,
hut running loose and foraging on vegetable refuse, &c. Generally
the pigs are removed as soon as a notice is served on the owner, and
that is as soon as they are discovered by the Inspector; but this is not
always the case, and proceedings were taken in two cases some time
ago, with a view to get rid of pigs in Lonsdale and Ledbury Mewses.
The magistrate, however, dismissed the summons in both cases, and
congratulated the defendants on having discovered how to keep pigs
without creating a nuisance, and without cost, the animals, it being
alleged, subsisting on the food which fell under the mangers, and
which otherwise would have been wasted. Should a suitable case arise,
I am of opinion that the question should be again tried.
Reference has already been made (at page 57) to the fact that several
licensees of Slahghter-houses were fined for breaches of the bye-laws;
and to convictions for disobedience of your Vestry's regulations for the
periodical removal of stable manure (page 66.)
Conviction fob Transmitting Infected Clothing.—Proceedings
were taken to try whether a stop might not be put to the dangerous
practice of laundresses carrying on their business while members of
their families are suffering from an infectious disease?
The case arose in this way.—A boy contracted small-pox, and was
nursed at home in a front parlour by his mother and his aunt, who
carried on the business of a laundry in the basement of the house. The
parents refusing to let the boy go to hospital, were forbidden to carry 011
the business, or to send home the customers' linen until it had been disinfected.
The business was carried on as usual, however, and the linen
having been sent home without previous disinfection, the question arose
whether the linen had been "exposed to infection" so as to make the
"transmission" of it an offence under section 38 of The Sanitary Act,
1866? The case received a very attentive hearing from Mr. Bridge,
who in giving his judgement said, that although he was not prepared
to go so far as to say that a laundry, where the premises were large,
could not be carried on with safety, even though there might be a case
of infectious disease in the house, the presumption in fact and in
common sense was that there was danger in the practice. It was
clearly a duty owing by a laundress to the public to discontinue her
business immediately on a dangerous infectious disease occurring in her
house, and not to send to the homes of her customers things that had
been exposed to infection, as in the case under consideration. He held
that from the subtle nature of the infection, from the relative position
f 2