View report page

52
Effluvium Nuisance.
During 1919 a complaint was received with reference to an
alleged effluvium nuisance from the works of the Morgan
Crucible Company. The necessary steps were taken to
investigate the complaint, but no nuisance of the nature complained
of was established by the Council's officers.
Sanitary Staff.
The Sanitary Inspectorial Staff consists of 1 chief
inspector, 8 district inspectors, 2 special male inspectors for
Food and Drug and Factory and Workshop inspection, 2
female sanitary inspectors (who also act as part-time health
visitors), and three health visitors. A list of the staff is set out
on page 4.
Rag Flock Act, 1911.
This Act was passed to prevent the use of material
known as rag flock, which does not comply with the standard
of cleanliness laid down in the Act. Rag flock was largely made
from rags of various descriptions—e.g., old discarded clothing,
carpets, etc.—usually dirty and unwholesome and perhaps
infected. Rag flock so made was largely used in the manufacture
of the cheaper kinds of bedding and upholstery, and
its use for this purpose constituted a distinct danger to health.
Flock manufactured from rags must now conform to the requirements
of the Act, in that a sample of such rag flock shall not,
on analysis, be found to contain more than the maximum, permissible
amount of chlorine, viz., 30 parts of chlorine to 100,000
parts of the flock.
Difficulties of a legal and technical character have arisen
in connection with the administration of the Act by Sanitary
Authorities, and in view of these difficulties not much use has
so far been made of the powers contained therein.
During 1919 a circular letter (dated May 26th, 1919) was
received from the Local Government Board, reminding Sanitary
Authorities of their duties under the Rag Flock Act, 1911, and
drawing attention to legal decisions given by the High Courts
under the Acts in regard to the cases of (1) Cooper v. Swift
(1914), 1 K.B. 253, dealing with the interpretation of the term
"flock," and (2) Gamble v. Gordon. (1913), 3 K.B. 149, as to
whether "remakes" come within the scope of the Act. It was
held that (1) the word "rag" has a wide meaning, and includes
rags others than those cut or torn from a piece of material which
has been used on a garment, or has become foul from contact
with the human body, and (2) the Act does not apply to genuine