View report page

112
"English." The fine imposed was £3 in respect of each summons.
Penalties will probably only have a restraining influence if they
make it undesirable from a business point of view to commit offences.
The summons for exposing unsound dates for sale was not
heard because the Police were unable to serve the summons, the
present whereabouts of the defendant being unknown. This case
is typical of many that occur. Itinerant traders from other boroughs
came into one of the market streets with a hired costermonger's
barrow laden with unsound dates. The Inspector seized the dates
and, with the aid of the Police, obtained the name and address of
one of the men. The usual procedure was followed—carrying the
dates before a magistrate, securing an order for their destruction,
and later the issuing of the summons which, in this case, was not
served. The practical difficulty of dealing with itinerant traders
was mentioned when the Draft Food and Drugs Rill was being
reviewed just recently.
The fourth summons for exposing imported meat improperly
marked was dismissed on the payment of £1 1s. costs. The evidence
given in Court was that the defendant had a butcher's stall in the
market and had been cautioned before for not keeping meat properly
marked. On the occasion in question he had a joint of imported
meat marked "This joint English," besides having further joints
of imported meat without proper marking. On the face of it, this
offence does not appear to be great, but it must be remembered that
imported meat not marked at all is frequently purchased as English
to the prejudice of the customer, and for the butcher to mark
imported meat "English" is a deliberate fraud, and should-be
regarded as such. For cases of this kind to be dismissed on payment
of £1 1s. costs is really an inducement to unscrupulous traders to risk
mismarking meat in the knowledge that the profit derived in the
meantime will amply provide for the penalty, when caught.
The result obtained concerning the summons regarding the
butcher's shop is most unfortunate. In evidence it was stated that
the shop floor was dirty and littered with feathers; a dustbin lid
full to overflowing with poultry offal was on the floor; feathers were
adhering to the meat exposed for sale; benches in the shop were
filthy, and dirty newspaper was resting on cooked meat. Before
further evidence was given the case was adjourned sine die and the
defendant was informed that if the premises were cleaned
the case would not be re-opened. The fact that Notices had been
served on the defendant on several occasions as well as several
warnings delivered could not be placed as evidence before the
Magistrate, and the effect of such a decision upon the shopkeeper in
question may well be imagined. No case is ever taken to Court
unless the offence is wilful and deliberate.