View report page

119
proceeded against for neglect to keep these utensils in a decent
state of cleanliness, evidence being brought forward to show that on
a certain date twelve churns standing in the yard were filthy and
stinking. There was no doubt raised in the Court as to the condition
of the churns, but, naturally, we were unable to prove that these
particular churns were to be used again. It was a simple enough
matter for the defendants to say that they were not, and even when
they were again put into use it would be quite impossible for us to
prove that these were the identical churns which had been the subject
of proceedings.
As regards removal from the register, consideration need not
be limited to one particular offence on a particular day, but the firm's
behaviour and offences generally can be considered, and a Magistrate
who would not convict as regards a particular case, such as that
above, would be very reluctant indeed to instruct a sanitary
authority to replace on the register a firm who from their general
conduct of a business were considered by the sanitary authority to
be a danger to the public. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that
this firm, who were removed from the register in Poplar and refused
reinstatement later in that borough and were removed from the
register and refused reinstatement in Hackney, would still be
operating in both boroughs if it were not for the power of refusing
registration.
Street Traders' Licensing.—The licensing of food stalls should
not be dealt with merely from the point of view of road space or
storage facilities. The time is certainly not ripe for advocating
such restrictions as refusal to license a street trader to sell from a
stall food of a soft or of an absorbent nature to be eaten without
cooking, or such foods as are peculiarly liable to contamination,
although 1 am sure that at some future date only tinned or packet
food and greengrocery will be allowed to be sold from stalls, and
that fruit, such as plums and cherries, confectionery, bread, biscuits
and similar foods will certainly be prohibited. If a confectionery
stallholder refuses to provide an adequate screen to his stall—and
sweets are liable to all forms of street dust contamination—the matter
can be taken to the Police Court under the by-laws, and proceedings
would undoubtedly, in my opinion, be unsuccessful, and the present
method of preventing contamination by dusting biscuits and similar
foodstuffs with a feather duster to take away visible dirt would
probably keep such foodstuffs sufficiently clean to make seizure or
proceedings almost impossible. Screening, if of no other value, is
a most useful way of indicating to the public that food should be
kept clean from dust, and when the process of education by this
and other methods has progressed far enough it may be possible, at
some future time, to prevent the sale of foods of an unsuitable nature
from stalls. It should, therefore, he made a condition of licensing