View report page

70
the question before us, nor to discuss the numerous authorities to be found in the
books in which the facts, though to some extent, apparently, do not really resemble
those in the present case, and in none of which has the question now raised been
argued or decided, nor any principle laid down to guide us.
I have purposely abstained, therefore, from entering upon any such enquiries, and
have contented myself with simply answering the one question upon which our opinion
is asked.
In the result, I think our judgment ought to be for the Appellants, and in this
judgment my Brother Denrnan agrees.
Pain v. Boughtwood.
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. S. 9.
This case is shortly referred to in the Medical Officer's report (p. 88).
The question as to whether a guilty knowledge of the fact that
his milk had been adulterated was necessary to the conviction of a
vendor of that article under this section had long been a vexata
qucestio among the stipendiary magistrates of the Metropolis, some
deciding one way and some another. The Vestry at length, upon the
recommendation of its Sanitary Committee, brought the matter to an
issue by obtaining a case for the opinion of the High Court upon the
refusal of Mr. Bros sitting at the Dalston Police Court to convict the
above-named defendant.
The case was argued before Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice
Charles, on January 28th, 1890, Mr. Austin appearing for the appellant,
one of the Vestry's Sanitary Inspectors, and the defendant Boughtwood
being unrepresented.
The Judges decided that a mens rea, or guilty knowledge, was not
necessary, and thus solved in favour of the Sanitary Authorities a
difficulty which had long stood in the way of the proper enforcement
by them of the salutary provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
Offences under the General Paving (Metropolis) Act, 1817.
On the 11th December, 1889, Augustus Berry Norman, Provision
Dealer, 52, Essex Road, was summoned before Mr. Horace Smith, at
the Clerkenwell Police Court, for depositing offal or refuse upon the
carriage-way of Windsor Street, contrary to the provisions of the
above act. The defendant admitted the offence and was fined 10s. and
2s. costs.