View report page

123
uncertified deaths.
The cause of death in 15 instances last year was not certified
by a registered medical practitioner or by a coroner.
piggeries.
During last year 16 legal proceedings were taken against
persons for keeping swine in localities unfit for the keeping of
swine. Of these 10 were fresh proceedings against persons who
had not been previously proceeded against. Six were proceedings
against persons who had previously been proceeded against, and
who had disobeyed magistrates' orders by keeping swine upon
their premises. Of the fresh proceedings, in nine cases the notice
of your Board requiring the pig keepers to remove the swine was
obeyed, and consequently no further proceedings were taken. In
one case the notice of your Board was not obeyed. In this case
a summons was taken out against the pig keeper. At the hearing
of this case an order was made by the consent of the defendant,
and he was fined a nominal penalty of is. and 2s. costs.
Of the 6 proceedings against persons for keeping swine on
their premises contrary to magistrates' orders, in one case the
learned magistrate adjourned the case sine die to allow the
defendant to remove the swine in a time to be sanctioned by
your Board. One month after the hearing of the case the swine
had not been removed. An application was made by your Board
to the learned magistrate requesting him to again fix the hearing
of the summons. At the adjourned hearing of the summons the
defendant was fined 10s. with 2s. the costs. In one case the pig
keeper was fined 40s. with 2s. costs. In another case the defendant
was fined 10s. with 2s. costs. In one case the summons
was withdrawn, as the pig keeper a few days before the day
that the summons was to be heard was killed by falling out
of a cart, and the swine by the hearing day had been removed.
In one case a summons was taken out against the brother of the
pig keeper who had been killed, for after his brother's decease
keeping swine upon the same premises contrary to the magistrate's
order. At the hearing of the summons before the magistrate
it was contended in defence that the order which had been
made did not prohibit any occupier from keeping swine upon the
premises, but only the person who occupied the premises at the
time that the order was made. It was also contended that the
defendant, not having had a copy of the order served upon him,
did not legally know of the existence of the order, and, therefore,
Could not legally be convicted. The learned magistrate suggested
that the summons should be withdrawn, without any order as to
costs, and that a copy of the order that had been previously made