View report page

234 23 NOVEMBER, 1892.
and your Committee resolved to recommend—
(a) That proceedings be taken against the persons who
sold to your Inspector:
No. 257. The sample of Milk containing about 40 per
cent, less than the usual proportion of cream.
No. 240. The sample of Milk admixed with about 15
per cent, of added water.
(b) No. 234. That the person who sold the sample of
Milk admixed with about 8 per cent, of added water
be cautioned.
(9) That your Committee have again, pursuant to the directions
of your Board, taken into consideration the subject of the
appointment of Mr. Cox who was a Sanitary Inspector of the
Vestry before the 1st January, 1892, and as to his appointment
as a Sanitary Inspector under the General Order of the
Local Government Board of the 8th December, 1891.
That your Committee felt that the whole of the facts
having been so often discussed of late on the Board, that it is
unnecessary again to repeat them, and therefore simply
recommend—
(a) That the Vestry do proceed at its next meeting to reappoint
Charles Cox who held office before the 1st
January, 1892, as Sanitary Inspector, to be the Sanitary
Inspector for the No. 1 District, viz.: that portion of
the North Ward East of Globe Road and the whole
of the East Ward of the Hamlet.
(b) That his salary be £200 per annum.
(c) That his hours be from 9 to 5 as in the case of the
other two Inspectors.
(d) That he hold office upon the terms of the General
Order of the Local Government Board of the 8th
December, 1891.
(e) That the requisite notice of the intention to make such
reappointment be inserted on the Agenda for the next
meeting of the Vestry.
(10) That with regard to Lewin's Buildings, &c., your Committee
think that it would be well to shortly state the facts of the
case, which were as follows:
Your Medical Officer of Health in February and March,
1891, made representations to your Committee under the
provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,
that No. 6, Adelina Grove and Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Lewin's
Buildings were Obstructive Buildings under the Act.
That your Committee thereupon determined to view the
premises, and having done so, came to the conclusion that the
block of buildings irom the East side of Sidney Street, in-