[Report 1899] / Medical Officer of Health, Cannock U.D.C.

  • Cannock (England). Urban District Council.
Date:
1899
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1899] / Medical Officer of Health, Cannock U.D.C. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/22 (page 15)
    In addition to the above there are in each ward of the district flagi'ant evidences of defective drainage, which runs anyhow and anywhere, so that the sanction of tlie Local Governjuent Hoard to ^Ir. Blackshaw’s sewage extension scheme, and the necessaiy loan for carrying out the same, is earnestly desired in the interests of the public health of the district. The meat markets and slaughter-houses of the distinct have been visited, and 0])portunities taken when possible of examining the meat whilst being dressed, but in my opinion the erection of a public slaughter-house, especially in the Hednesford district, is the only satisfactory solution to thorough meat inspection. Surprise visits have been paid by the Sanitaiy Inspector and myself to certain suspected slaughter-houses, but with no tangible result. Ou one occasion last year the Sanitary Inspector and myself visited a Colonial Meat Stores in Station Street, Hcdnesfoi'd, where we found deposited in the shop un- .sound meat, which was forthwith condemned and destroyed. 'J'he salesman was pi'osecuted, but the Court dismissed the case on the ground.s that, the shop being closed, the meat was not exposed for sale. The following cpiery was Mibse- quently asked in the “Justice of the Peace,” April 15th, 1899, viz., “An inspector of nuisances visits a butcher's premises, the sales shop being closed and locked up, and on admission he finds pieces of meat in the shop prepai^ed for sale, which, on examination, were found to be unfit for human food, and were seized and destroyed in due coui-se. Will a conviction lie for ' being in possession or on whose premises, &c.’?—see Public Health Act, 1875, s. 117 (a). It is not sutrffcsted that the meat was exposed for sale for- human food, but it is coufended a conviction ouglit to follow for having the meat deposited on the pi-emises ready for sale.” The answer to the above query was as follows, viz., “ If the inspector was satisfied that the meat was deposited in the shop either for the purpose of sale or of jirepai'ation for sale, and was intended for the food of man he might seize and carry it befoi’e a justice to be condemned. Ihe proof that the meat was not so deposited, or- was not intended for the food of man, t ests upon the butcher. If the meat was destroyed without the order of a justice, the destruction was wi’ongful, and an action foi‘ damages will lie against the Council. If it was tlestroyed on a justices order, the butcher may be convicted unless he shows that it was not depositeil for the purpose of sale or of prepiu’a- tion of sale, and was not intended for the food of man, Meat Siipplj'.