View report page

118
refused. It was impossible to proceed against him for trading
without being registered, until the last application, which was
insufficient in detail, was returned to the applicant for completion
and was not sent back again for consideration by the Council. Proceedings
were then taken against this last applicant, both for trading
without being registered and under the Merchandise Marks Act,
1887, for "selling milk under a false trade description and having
in possession for the purpose of sale milk under a false trade
description," since it was a peculiarity of this dairyman that he
used milk bottles belonging to other dairymen. The case was
heard, defendant pleaded guilty and a very capable advocate
pleaded so successfully that a fine of only £1 was imposed on each
of the three counts. There is no doubt that this firm have now
ceased to trade in Hackney, although they appear to be trading
elsewhere and have a headquarters outside the County of London.
It is then obviously a weakness in the procedure that although
this firm were fined in a neighbouring borough a total of £200 in
June, 1934, and were then taken off the register by an order of the
Magistrate, it was only in April, 1935, several months after the
Hackney Public Health Committee had decided to remove the firm
from the register, that it was possible to prevent them selling milk
in Hackney, but it should be borne in mind that registration and
the powers regarding registration were really the means by which
we kept in touch with, and finally got rid of, this firm, and it would
be sufficient merely to remove the time protection in the Milk and
Dairies (Amendment) Act, 1922, as regards a convicted firm to
prevent the manoeuvre whereby a firm, with no intention of
appealing to the Magistrate against refusal to register, can put forward
a succession of applications enabling the firm to continue
trading in safety as regards prosecution for not being registered.
Comparison between Registration and Prosecution under various
Statutes.—Prosecution under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration)
Act and similar proceedings would not alone, in all probability,
have discouraged this firm, who were convicted in Hackney on three
occasions for different offences of this type prior to removal from
the register, and were also proceeded against unsuccessfully for conducting
their business under unclean conditions. Earlier I have
mentioned the difficulty of preventing offences against cleanliness,
even though specific powers exist with that end in view, for instance,
under Sec. 21 of the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, it is stated that
all vessels and appliances brought into contact with milk shall be
kept at all times in a state of thorough cleanliness, and also for this
purpose every vessel, etc., shall be thoroughly washed as soon as
may be after use. Every vessel, etc., when not in use shall be stored
in a clean place and shall be protected from dust and dirt. This
seems clear enough, and, after due warning, this same firm were