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

View report page

East Ham 1899

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for East Ham]

This page requires JavaScript

30
the vendor secured it and refused to return it. He was summoned
for refusing to sell under the 17 th section Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1875. The magistrates convicted, and inflicted a fine of 40s.
and costs. The vendor, being dissatisfied with the magistrates'
decision, appealed to the Superior Court. The case was stated
and heard by Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Lawrence on the
9th and 10th of June, when their Lordships upheld the finding of
the magistrates, and dismissed the appeal with costs against the
appellant. This decision is of vital importance to the successful
working of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act; for it will be seen
that if a vendor had a right to seize the article already sold,
when he discovered for what purpose it had been purchased that
it would be essential for the Inspector to go through a specific
physical training in order to successfully carry out his duties.
In March, I stopped a milkman, and asked for a pint of
milk. The vendor measured me a pint from a small can in his
barrow. Feeling sceptical as to the contents of a large churn, I
desired to be served from it; but Mr. Milkman said "No." He
was summoned for refusing to sell from a particular can which
contained an article being sold as food, convicted, and fined £5
and costs. It will be seen that this was an important decision;
for what would be more easy than for fraudulent milkmen to carry
a small quantity of "pure" ready for the Inspector, and at the
same time be trading with a mixture of milk and water.
A third conviction for refusing to sell was obtained against a
milkman, who, after serving the milk, refused to take the money,
stating that the milk was a gift. He was fined 40s. for being too
generous.
It will be seen from the tabulated list of prosecutions that the
Warranty and Time Limit Clauses have caused us to have two
cases dismissed, and are a great hindrance to the effectual working
of the Acts. The defendants were under no obligation to inform us
that they held Warranties, neither did they until the 28 days
(time limit) had expired.