Law reports

244

LAW REPORTS.

health has taken place in regard to " preventable " diseases, £e., diseases of the zymotic class. This improvement has been largely due to the Legislation of i866 ( " The Sanitary A c t " ) and I867 ( " T h e Metropolitan Poor Act "), the Metropolis having been endowed under the last-named Act, with a magnificent system of hospitals for infectious diseases, organized by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, whilst under the former Act, public health has been safe-guarded by provisions for preventing the spread of infectious disease, by exposure of the sick, etc., and for disinfection, etc. It is not probable that the good results of the past thirty-four years of sanitary administration will be far surpassed in time to come ; but something may be done by legislation to facilitate the proceedings of those, authorities and officers alike, engaged in the great work. In my last report, I observed that "what is most wanted is machinery, whereby a nearer approach to Unity in carrying out the provisions ot law may be attained Measures for the Consolidation of Sanitary Laws and for Compulsory Notification of I/afectious Diseases, together with a settlement of the Hospital Question on the principles which I have ventured to lay down, are among the most pressing needs of the Metropolis at the present time." Compulsory notification has now been provided for by the Infectious Disease (Notification) Act, ~889 ; the hospital question has been practically settled by the Poor Law Act, x889, whilst a measure to consolidate the Public Health Acts, to be introduced by Mr. Ritchie, will probably pass into law during the current Session. NEILL'S PATENT IMPROVED SYSTEM FOR MOISTENING AIR IN WEAVING FACTORIES.--Mr.

Neill, of the Rose Bank Factory, Belfast, has patented an improved system for moistening the air in weaving factories by means of condensed vapour arising from a cooling reservoir. The system consists of moistening the air by condensed vapour, arising from a cooling reservoir. It is collected in an enclosure over the reservoir, and from it is introduced into the factory by fans or air propellers, and distributed, at a low temperature, through perforated wooden tubes. Comparing it with steam its advantages are obvious to those who have had experience of both systems. A very great saving is effected by utilizing a waste product instead of steam, which has to be generated at considerable expense ; and practical results show that the atmosphere produced in a weaving factory by the introduction of the vapour is favourable, not only as regards the quality and quantity of the manufacture, but it also contributes to the health and comfort of the worker. This system has been used for the past six months by the Rosebank Weaving Company (Limited), and has been reviewed favourabty in the last report of the Chief Inspectors of Factories.

LAW REPORTS. PROSECUTION AT READING FOR USING AN UNLICENSED SLAUGHTER-H 0USE.

O N October 2oth, at the Reading Borough Bench, before Charles Smith, Esq. (in the chair), W. I. Palmer and J. Simonds, Esqs., Robert Thompson, porkbutcher, of 3 r, St. Mary's Butts, was summoned at the instance of the Reading Corporation, as the Urban Sanitary Authority, for using his premises for slaughtering on September 25th , without having a licence. Mr. A. H. Spokes, barrister (instructed by Mr. F. Stevens, solicitor, from the Town Clerk's office) prosecuted, and the defendant was represented by Mr. Sydney Brain. Mr. Spokes, in opening, said the summons was taken out under section x26 of the Town Improvement Clauses Act, I847, which enacted that no place should be used or occupied as a slaughterhouse which was not in such use and occupation at the time of the passing of the "Special Act," which was the Local Government Act of i858 , incorporated with it subsequently. Therefore, he had to show that this slaughter-house of Mr. Thompson's was not used and occupied as such on or before September xst, i858 (when the Act first came into force), and had not been used continuously since that date as such. He did n o t know whether his friend Mr. Brain would dispute that. He should prove by witnesses that Mr. Thompson first occupied the premises in the year I869, previous to which date no slaughter-house existed on the premises. To prove that the Corporation had not acted either precipitately or unjustly in instituting this prosecution, he might mention that Mr. Thompson applied for a licence on January x2th, x889, but the Corporation refused to grant it. They, however, offered to permit him to use the premises as such until they were in a position to allow him part of the abattoirs. This permission was withdrawn on November 2nd, 1889, when part of the public slaughter-houses became vacant ; and on November 4th the,defendant wrote "distinctly declining to be a medium for poisoning the public of Reading by using the insanitary fever-breeding dens the said authority (the Sanitary Authority) defined slaughter-houses." He further stated that if they took away his right from St. Mary's Butts he would use 58, Broad Street, where the right had existed for over 7° years. The Town Clerk-wrote stating that he would be in the same position then, for the premises in Broad Street had not been used continuously. Attempts to satisfy him had gone on ever since, the Corporation having spent a considerable sum of money in altering the abattoirs to suit Mr. Thompson, and finally, he having signed the agreement, the Corporation naturally thought he would cease using the premises in the Butts. But as he did not, these proceedings were instituted to compel him to do so.

LAW REPORTS. The facts stated having been proved by the town clerk, the inspector of nuisances, and others, In defence, Mr. Brain, having commented on the fact that no prosecution had been made since t873 , although the premises had been knowingly used as a slaughter-house ever since, said he joined issue with the learned counsel that the "Special A c t " referred to now meant the Act of i858. According to his reading of the law it meant the Public Health Act of I875 , which repealed the Act of i858 in toto, which thus became dead and effete. The premises were then in use, and had been so used ever since, so that his client was within his rights. In reply, Mr. Spokes said that if this were the case it would result in the absurdity that whereas the law prevented a person using premises not in existence before I858, yet on the repeal of that Act they might have used them if in existence in I875. Such could not have been the intention of the Legislature, and there was a saving clause in file Act, reserving to the authority all "rights and liabilities." Section 343. Mr. Brain said they had not to consider whether or not the law was an absurditymvery likely it might be--but to construe the plain words o! the

245

Mr. Parry. Borough Surveyor, produced a plan of the premises, and said that Mr. Thompson's yard was within 75 feet of the premises. Cross-examined: This bye-law included the extended area of the borough. He knew that the extended area included an agricultural district. There were farm houses in it. This bye-law in eluded those places. Manor Farm was in the extended area. He did not know whether they had pigstyes within 75 feet of the house at Manor Farm. Mr. Brain, in defence, maintained that the summons must fall to the ground, because the bye-law was bad in law, inasmuch as it professed to lay down a hard and fast line for all parts of the borough, including the agricultural parts of the extended borough. H e also argued that the Town Council had exceeded their powers under the Public Health Act, and cited several decisions of the High Court in support of his contentions. Mr. Spokes having replied, The Bench retired for a considerable time, and, on returning, the Chairman said that there was a difference of opinion amongst them, but the majority were of opinion that the defendant should be convicted. H e would be fined , ~ i , and 9s. costs.

Act.

The Bench convicted, stating they were of opinion that the repealing clauses of the Act of x875 did not apply in this case. They imposed a fine of -.-~,, and .~4 costs, or fourteen days in default. Mr. Brain gave notice that he should make a written application for the statement of a case on the points raised. PROSECUTION U N D E R A BYE-LAW AS TO KEEPING SWINE W I T H I N A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF DWELLING-HOUSES.

ON October 2oth, at the Reading Borough Bench, Robert Thompson was summoned for keeping swine within 75 feet of a dwelling-house, contrary to the byelaws made under the Public Health Act, on the ioth of September and other dates. Mr. Spokes first called the Inspector of Nuisances (Mr. Roberton), who said that on the xoth September, I89o, he visited the adjoining school, and on looking over the wall in the school yard he saw nine pigs in a pen in the defendant's yard, which was covered over. There was no storage of refuse there, but it was a hot day and the smell was offensive. On the 24th he again visited the school yard, and on looking over the wall saw about ten pigs there. He saw them fed. On the u5th September he went again about nine o'clock in the morning and saw pigs there. In the afternoon of the same day he saw three pigs killed by defendant and his men. H e went again, but found something had been put up against the wall so that he could not see over.

SUPREME

COURT

OF

JUDICATURE.~CoURT

OF

APPEAL--Before the MASTER of the ROLLS and Lords Justices LINDLEY and LoPES.--~/sh,es

under the Metropolis Local Management Act must not be interpreted trade refuse. De/fnition of trade reflFllse.~ST. MARTIN'S VESTRY V. GORDON. THIS was an appeal from the decision of a Divisional Court, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Mr. Justice Wills, upon a special case stated for the opinion of the Court by Sir John Bridge, the senior magistrate at Bow Street. Mr. Gordon was the proprietor of the H6tel Mdtropole, and the question raised was whether the vestry were bound, under the Metropolis Local Management Act, ,885, to remove, in the ordinary course, the clinkers and other refuse produced in the furnaces erected in the hotel for the purpose o f supplying the electric lighting of the hotel, heating the public rooms, and also for the purpose of cooking. The vestry contended that the clinkers were t h e " refuse of a trade" within the meaning of Section i a8 of the Act, and therefore that they were not bound to remove them without payment of a reasonable sum for so doing. The Divisional Court held that the clinkers were not the refuse of a trade, and that the vestry were bound to remove them without payment [6 the Times Law Reports, 358). The vestry appealed. Section x25 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, provides that the scavengers appointed by the vestry shall collect and remove "all dirt, ashes, rubbish, ice, snow, and filth, in or under any house within their parish ; " Section I57 gives the property in dirt,

246

LAW

REPORTS.

etc., so c~l'.ec,ed to the vestry; and Section 128 provides that if any scavenger is required by the owner or occupier of a house to remove " t h e refuse of any trade, manufacture, or business," the owner or occupier shall pay the scavenger a reasonab!e sum for so doing, the sum in case of difference to be settled by a magistrate. Mr. R. G. Glenn appeared for the vestry ; Mr. J. E. Bankes appeared for the respondent. T h e Court, having taken time to cons!der the question, dismissed the appeal. The Master of the Rolls said that the matter in dispute was admittedly ashes, the result of fires. The question ~as whether the vestry were bound to remove those ashes without payment. H e was not surprised that difficulties had arisen on the construction of that Act of Parliament. It left matters very much in obscurity. Persons who drew and amended Acts knew themselves clearly what they intended, but they often omitted to express their intentions with the same clearness. One of the principal difficulties of construction arose from different words being used in different parts of the same Act to mean the same thing. The word% however, must be construed according to the ordinary meaning of language. Taking each section by itself it became obvious, from Section i25, that the vesuy was bound to remove "all ashes," which would include the ashes in question, unless there were something in the Act to limit the meaning of the word. The words used were different in every section, but there seemed to be nothing to limit the meaning of the word "ashes." Then came Section ~28, zhich apllied to the case in zhich the scavengers should be required by the owr~er to remove certain things. That clearly could not rtfer to the cases mentioned in the previous sections, where the scavengers were bound to remove. It applied to a condition of things in which the owner might remove the stuff himself if he liked, or might require the sca~ engers to remove it, and the owner in that case must pay for what they did. What, then, was the meaning of "refuse of any trade, manufacture, or business ? " I n his opinion it must be something d.fferent from what was meant in the other sections. Refuse o f l r a d e was a known business term, and meant what was left over of a material after it had been used for the purpose of the trade or manufacture. It was imFossible to give an exhaustive definition of the term, but it did not, in his opinion, include the ashes of fires used for warmirg the places in which the trade or manufacture was carried on. As to what was the refuse ~f the business of a hotelkeeper, he would not give any definition, but he was clear that it did not include such ashes as these. All the ashes produced in the hotel, from whatever place they came, must be removed by the vestry, and removed without payment. There was nothing in the Act to limit the words used in Section x25, and, therefore, these ashes were in-

cluded in that section. H e regretted to differ froth the case of " Gay v. C a d b y " (2 C. P. D , 296), in which the decision seemed to him to be wrong. Lord Justice Lindley read a written judgment to the same effect, in which he said that, although he did not disagree with his former decision in the case of " G a y v. Gadby," he should in this case entirely agree with the magistrate. Refuse of a trade did not, in his opinion, necessarily mean only the waste residue of the things manufactured or sold, but he was clear that the term did not include the ashes in the present case. Lord Justice Lopes, in the course of a written judgment to the same effect, gave the following definition of the term used in the Act : " Refuse of a trade, manufacture, or business is what has been discarded after the rest has been utilized for the purpose of working the trade, manufacture, or business, refuse which is the immediate and direct result of the trade, manufacture, or business, and not a kind of refuse which would arise as much it there was was no trade, manufacture, or business, and which is only increased in quantity by reason of the trade, manufacture, or business." He, like the Malster of the Rolls, felt unable to agree with the decisibn in " G a y v. Cadby."

QUEEN'S BENCH DivlSlON.--Before Mr. Justice HAWKINS and Mr. Justice STEPHEN.-- Under the I I6th and I 17"th sections of the Public Health A c t a person can be convicted i f the facts show that diseased or unwholesome meat is in preparatiopt f o r sale, although not actually, offered or exposed f o r sale.--The QUEEN,On the prosecution of MALIaNSON (appellant) v. CARR (defendant). THIS case raised a question as to whether butcher is liable under sections ~ ~6 and x I7 of the Public Health Act, x875, for having diseased meat on his premises, though not proved to have been actually exposed for sale. The enactments applicable are these : - - " Any medical officer of health or inspector of nuisances may at all reasonable times inspect and examine any animal, carcass, meat . . . exposed for sale or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale, or preparation for sale, and intended for the food of man (the proof that the same was not so resting with the party charged), and if any such carcass, meat, etc., appears to such officer to be diseased or unsound or unwholesome or unfit for the food of man, he may seize and carry it away." And (section I I 7 ) " i f it appears to tl~e Justices that any animal, carcass, meat so seized is diseased or unsound or unwholesome or unfit for the food of man, he shall condemn it and order it to be destroyed, and the person to whom it belongs or belonged at the time of exposure for sale shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding .~zo, or at the discretion of the Justices, without the infliction of a fine, to imprisonment for not more than three

LAW

REPORTS.

months." In the present case it appeared that the meat was deposited in a shed or outbuilding, part of the Gray tIorse-inn-ya~d, at Selby, which is neither part of a butcher's shop nor in any way connected therewith, and so, it was contended, was not a place where any carcass or meat is taken for sale or for preparation for sale, and that to obtain a conviction for "exposure for sale" it must appear that there was an actual exposure for sale. The information (before the Justices at Selby in the West Riding) was that the defendant had in his possession certain meat--four pieces of beef--for the purpose of preparation for sale and intended for the food of man, and which was unsound and unfit for the food of man. The magistrates dismissed the charge, but stated a case, in which it appeared that the defendant with others had purchased from one Kettlewell for 3os. a cow which a veterinary surgeon had ordered Kettlewell to get killed and dressed, and at the time of sale it was stipulated by Kettlewell that it was not to be offered for human food. The beast was slaughtered and cut up into four quarters and was removed by the defendant to a shed of whtch he had the key. Next day Kettlewell went and demanded it back as he had heard it was to be offered for human food. The defendant asked if any physic had been administered to it, and on Kettlewelt answering in the negative, said, " T h e n it is good beef," and that he was going to pickle it and cut it up, and he refused to give it back. The prosecutor, an inspector, was then informed of the matter and went and saw the defendant and told him he wanted to see the carcass of beef he had, and the defendant unlocked a shed occupied by one Chamber.,, but of which the defendant had the key, and in which the carcass still in the cart then was. The officer asked the defendant what he meant to do with it, and he said, " P u t it into pickle and cut it up." The prosecutor, thinking the meat not fit for human food, took possession of it and then called in the officer of health, by whom it was brought before the magistrates, by whom it was condemned as unfit for the food of man, and this was proved by the officer of health, but it was admitted that it had not been exposed for sale, and on this the magistrates held that the defendant could not be convicted and dismissed the charge. The prosecutor appealed on the case as thus stated. Mr. Lum]ey Smith, Q C., argued o n behalf of the appellant, and contended that the defendant was liable to be convicted for having the meat in his possession for the purpose of preparation for human food and intending it for human food. Mr. Scott Fox appeared for the defendant and argued that there was no offence unless the meat was exposed to sale. Mr. Lumley Smith, in reply, pointed out that the enactment was in the alternative, "shall expose for sale or have in possession for preparation ior the food of man and intending it for the food of man." The case was clearly, he said, within

247

one part of the enactment though not the other. I n the result, The Court adopted that view, and remitted the case to the magistrates. T h e magistrates, they said, had not come to the correct conclusion as to the law. The charge against the defendant was having in his possession meat intended for the food of man. At the time of the sale to the defendant it was stipulated that the meat should not be sold as food for man. But the defendant himself had said it was good beef and that he should pickle it and sell it as such, and persisted, after the officer said it was u n f t for human food. There was, therefore, abundant evidence that the defendant knew the meat was unfit for human food. No one could doubt that it was in his possession for the purpose of being offered as human food. And that would be an offence within the Act. Otherwise bad meat might be obtained to any amount, intended and prepared to be sold for human food, and it was impossible to adopt such a view of the Act. The case, therefore, must be sent back a~ having been wrongfully dismissed. E x PARTE LODGE--IN THE M A T T E R OF THE, KIRKHEATON LOCAL BOARD.

TIIIS was a case raising for the first time the important question whether an inhabitant ratepayer, owner, and occupier of a residence within the district of a Local Board can have mandamus against the Board to compel them to exercise their powers under the Public Health Act, 1875, for the purpose of providing proper sewerage and drainage. As one of the learned Judges observed, though these powers have been in force in one form or another for half a century, no case had arisen in which a mandamus had been allowed in such a case, but as there was a dictum of Lord Justice James to the effect that this was the proper remedy if a public Board refused in a proper case to exercise their powers, the Court, though not without some hesitation, granted a rule nfsi to have the question argued and determined, and if the maadamus is granttd it will be a most important precedent. The case had arisen under these circumstances. Mr. Lodge, the applicant, is owner and occupier of a residential property within the district ot the Kirkheaton Local Board (near Huddersfield) and a ratepayer ; and the site, as he said, is one welt adapted for drainage, being on a rising ground, rising to an elevation of 600 ft. A natural stream runs through his property down into " Kirk~'Ings Beck," a stream or small river bounding the district. The affidavits on his part showed that sewage was poured into the stream which runs through the applicator's property, which runs into the Beck, and so, as he said, pruduced a poliution of the stream, which was injurious to health. Applications had, he said, been made to the Local Board to remedy the grievance, but they declined,

248

LAW R E P O R T S . - - B A C T E R I O L O G Y .

sa~ing that there were "difficulties" in their way, but what these were did not appear. There had been some proceedings in Chancery in which it was admitted that the stream running through the property was a " d r a i n " or sewer within the Act. Mr. Cock, Q.C., now moved for a rule nisi for a anandamus to the Board to keep in repair all sewers belonging to them and cause to be made such sewers as may be necessary for the effectual draining of the district for the purposes of the Act. What the difficulties in their way were he said he could not conceive, unless it was the disinclination o f the Board to incur the necessary expense. In "Glossop v. the Heston Local B o a r d " (Law Reports I2, Ch. Div. Io2) it was said by Lord Justice James that in such a case where a public Board refused to exercise their statutory powers a mandamus was the proper remedy. H e cited also " T h e Attorney-General v. Dorking" (2o Ch. Div., 595). [Mr. Justice Williams.~There never, I believe, has been a case in which such a duty has been enforced by mandamus ?] No such case, certainly, can be found. [Mr. Justice Williams.--Nevertheless, the opinion of Lord Justice James is authority enough to grant a rule nisi to have the question determined.] So it is submitted, as it is an extremely important question. Rule nisi granted. ~)RAINAGE CASE U N D E R SECT. 7 ~[ETROPOLITAN LOCAL M A N A G E M E N T ACT.--VESTRY OF PADDINGTON V. HUNTER.

AT Marylebone, Mr. Cooke, the stipendiary, gave his decision, Nov. 1 9 t h , in the case of the Paddington Vestry v. Hunter, wbich was argued fully a few weeks previously, Mr. Peile, barrister, representing the vestry, and Mr. Glen, barrister, the defendant. Mr. Cooke said that this was a summons by the Vestry of Paddington against Mr. H. Hunter to recover a penalty under the 7th section of the Metropolitan Local Management Act of I855, and the Amending Act of 1862, for not having obeyed a notice to abolish the present system of combined and defecfive drainage, and to separately drain his house, No. i48, Westbourne Terrace, Bayswater, into a public sewer recently made by the vestry in front o f a block of houses, of which No. 148 was one, and which sewer was made to join and fall into an existing sewer at Orsett Terrace. The facts of the case were in a great measure undisputed. The vestry, he said, had altered the system of drainage, and had required the defendant to alter his drains so as to fall into the altered and extended sewer. That being so, he thought that the case strictly came within the 69th section of the Metropolitan Local Management Act, which provided that where the vestry or district board altered any sewer, or provided a new sewer, they might construct or o~herwise alter the private drains communicating with the sewer so altered, and might close up such

private drains and provide drains in lieu thereof. The case of " T h e Vestry of St. Marylebone v. Viset (34 L f., M.C., 214) was a case in point where it was decided that it was not compellable to the occupier to make a new drain or bear the cost of constructing it, on the ground that the facts brought the case under section 69 . Under the circumstances he should dismiss the summons. H e was willing, however, to grant a special case if desired. BACTERIOLOGY. CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF DIPHTHERIA.

By MM. E. R o v x and A. YERSlN. (Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. T o m e IV., 385.) ( Continued from page 215 ).

Does the D~Mheria Bacillus Persist in the Mouth alter the Disa22earance of the FaAe Membrane ? ~ Let us remove each day a fragment of false membrane from the throat of a person suffering from diphtheria, and examine it after staining by the mmroscope. Whilst the pseudo-membrane remains adherent, and is readily produced, we there find many specific bacilli, but the latter become rare in proportion as the patient gets better, and as the membranous skin disintegrates. The change in the consistence of the membrane corresponds to its invasion by common microbes. Better than a microscopical examination, cultivation in serum allows the process of gradual disappearance of the microbes to be followed. They frequently persist as long as the membranous coating, and disappear with it. We can cite a number of eases in which cultivations made the day after the one in-which the membrane had disappeared, gave no specific colonies. There is then a striking contrast between the appearance of tubes sown into at the commencement of the disease, and those sown Into when the mucous membrane has again become healthy. In twenty-four hours the first show numerous diphtheritic colonies, after several days the latter tubes only show some islets of common microbes. ~ It must not, however, be forgotten that our observations have been made at the hospital in which washings and antiseptic mopping of the throat kill most of the bacilli not protected by a thick layer of fibrin. When the treatment has ceased, and the child restored to its parents, there may be a few scattered bacilli which give a new cultivation. This we have several times ascertained. This rapid disappearance of the diphtheritic bacilli is not always the rule, they may still be found in all their virulence in the mouth of persons who have just had the disease, when the membranes no longer exist, and the mucous membrane is perfectly healthy.* * Escher'ch has found th~.m three days after the disappearance of the false mernbra-.e.