London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

St Mary (Battersea) 1890

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Battersea]

This page requires JavaScript

47
day the 6th May they were taken to the Magistrate at the
Wandsworth Police Court who ordered them to be destroyed.
The Committee directed that proceedings be taken
against Richard Garlic for offering the fowls for sale, and also
for obstructing the Inspector while endeavouring to seize the
same ; they also considered the extreme danger to which
the Inspector was exposed by the cowardly conduct of the
police constable who refused to assist him when called
upon to do so, and they directed that a communication be
addressed to the local police authorities, with a view to
ascertaining the name and number of the constable in question,
and for a report upon the subject to be forwarded to the Commissioner
of Police for the Metropolis with a request that he
would cause an investigation to be made. The Committee commended
the Inspector for the courageous manner in which he
effected the seizure.
Garlic was summoned before the Magistrate for exposing
for sale fowls unfit for the food of man, and for obstructing the
Sanitary Inspector in the execution of his duty—both summonses
were heard together, and the Solicitor to the Vestry
having examined the Inspector, myself, and Mr. Ireland one of
the witnesses to the obstruction, the Inspector proved the
seizure and unfitness of the fowls for food, as likewise myself.
The defendant thereupon called two witnesses; a woman who
swore that she had purchased ten fowls for 5s., and a man that
he had purchased six for 3s., both these persons swore that the
fowls were fit to be eaten, that they had eaten them, and they
were perfectly good; upon this evidence the Magistrate
expressed his satisfaction that the fowls were fit to be eaten,
and dismissed the summons for exposing the fowls, but fined
the defendant £1 and 2s. costs in respect of the obstruction.
Too much praise cannot be awarded to the Inspector for
his conduct in this matter; the opinion he formed of the condition
of these fowls as unfit for food, was correct, but it is
extremely discomforting to be told, by a verdict given in court,
that your evidence is not believed, as to unfitness for food, but