View report page

have been in the habit of destroying the books which had been
borrowed from the public libraries by persons living in houses,
which had during the period of such borrowing become
infected by a notifiable disease. It was found that this led to
a useless expenditure, and it was accordingly decided that a
vacuum pump be fitted to one of the existing disinfecting
machines and that disinfection be carried out by the admission
of formalin vapour to the chamber where a negative pressure
had previously been obtained so as to ensure the penetration
of the disinfecting agent to the interior of the books. The
result appears to be satisfactory and comparatively inexpensive
The Borough Council of Stepney addressed a circular
letter to the other Councils asking them to join in an attempt
to obviate certain difficulties in the conviction of sellers of unsound
meat, where the meat, though obviously intended for
human food, is not exposed for sale.
The point was raised in the Council on the reception of
the Committee's report, in which they recommended support
to the proposals of Stepney as to whether proof of guilty
knowledge should not be required to be proved. The recommendation
was referred back and the following report was
made:—
To the Chairman and Members of the Public Health Committee.
Gentlemen, —The desirability of altering the law in the direction
of the resolution suggested at the last meeting of the Committee, would,
to my mind, be very objectionable. The law does require amendment so
far as regards the proceedings before a magistrate in cases where meat is
taken before him to be condemned. Such enactments should be inserted
as to make it impossible for meat to be condemned by a magistrate
without giving its owner an opportunity of being heard, for if this condemnation
has taken place, the defendant hardly has a fair start in the
proceedings which may arise.
The contention that guilty knowledge should be proved would
practically render a conviction impossible. Take, for instance, a shop
where a manager is in charge. In this case by throwing it on the
manager the owner would be easily able to shirk his responsibility, and on
the manager being summoned he may as easily disappear from the scene;
and a dishonest principal might easily evade the law every week.
If the proof of guilty knowledge be required to rest with the
prosecution, there is no reason why the same principle should not be
extended to other Acts, and the milkman who sells watered milk may be
able to put the blame on his man, who will certainly disappear when the
question of attempting to enforce the penalty comes up. In the case of a