View report page

63
The figures given for adulterated samples include two informal
samples of milk and four informal samples of cream in respect
of which no proceedings could be taken.
Prosecutions for Milk 2
Prosecutions for Cream 1
Official cautions for Cream 1
Fines and Costs imposed £11. 18. 0.
It is surely a curious anomaly in our law which allows a person
who is prosecuted for an infringement of the Acts and who pleads
guilty to be able to avoid cross examination, so that the previous
record of shortcomings can be concealed. By this means it is
possible for an offender who is being prosecuted as a result of accumulated
evidence of several infringements of the law to be dealt
with solely on the one count, provided he pleads guilty, an J it
is then impossible to bring in the evidence of the infringements
which led up to the final prosecution, and the result is that the
offender may, and does get off with a very light penalty or even
costs, whereas it would have been possible otherwise to prove that
the offence has been a continuous and deliberate one and not a mere
accident.
The outstanding event in dealing with food and drugs was the
outbreak of Lead Poisoning in 1922, due to the presence of lead in
the enamel of beer containers in the houses of one of the firms of
local brewers. With one exception, all the cases recovered. One
died, but the death could not be attributed to the lead poisoning,
although it was recorded as a contributory cause. As far as can be
ascertained, this outbreak is the only one on record of any number
of cases due to the presence of lead in beer. The circumstances
were fully set forth in the special report in 1922.