View report page

65
turkeys were unfit for food, that they were exposed for sale and that
the defendant had been convicted on a previous occasion for a
similar offence, and on another for marking imported meat
"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 Bill was being
reviewed.
The fourth summons for exposing imported meat improperly
marked, an offence against an Order made under the Merchandise
Marks Act, with a penalty of £5, 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 is 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 was 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