London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Bethnal Green 1870

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green]

This page requires JavaScript

14
Slaughter-houses (continued):—
Stacey, Charles Frederick 88, Bethnal Green Road
Stevenson, Charles 381, Cambridge Road
Sutton, Mary Ann 4, Essex Streot
Turpin, Esther 21, Old Ford Road (Bates' Place)
Volland, Charles 240, Bethnal Green Road
"Wagstaff, Henry 29, Green Street
"Watson, William 470, Bethnal Green Road
Willkina, Charles 3, Wellington Streot
Woods, Henry 469, Hackney Road
Wooster, Henry 131, Brick Lane
Wragg, John 247, Bethnal Green Road
Wright, William 31, Lisbon Street
Youdan, George1, Middle Row, Green Street
MEAT.
The carcass of a heifer was seized, on August 27th, at the rear of 422,
Bethnal Green Road: it was taken to "Worship Street, and there condemned
by the Magistrate, and a summons granted against J. Mills, the
owner. The case was one of a most unusual character, inasmuch as the
heifer had been taken into a private stable, killed with a common hammer
in a brutal manner, and dressed in a very rough style. There can be
little doubt that had the seizure not been made, the meat would, in a few
hours, have been converted into sausages. When the hearing came on,
the defendant did not appear, and a warrant was issued: this was never
served, however, as the offender, fearing the consequences of his act,
absconded, and has not since been heard of.
Two pieces of beef were seized, on November 10th, by Inspector J. W.
Burrows, at a chopping-house in the occupation of Mr. Cousins, situated
at Beehive Wharf, Pritchard's Row. It was stated, and afterwards
proved in Court by evidence, that the pieces of beef had not been bought
by Cousins, but had been sent to him by a meat salesman of the name of
Sketchley, who resides close to the City of London Meat Market, but just
outside the City boundary. The owner of the meat was summoned to
Worship Street, when Cousins gave evidence that he had never bought
the meat, but that it had been sent to him to use, and that he found it
so bad that he declined to do so. The defendant was fined £3 and
costs,