Page images
PDF
EPUB

3. ANALYSIS.

in the certificate makes it apparent that the analyst has proceeded upon the standard laid down by the Sale of Milk Regulations, 1901. Bayley v. Cook, 92 L. T. 170; 53 W. R. 410; 69 J. P. 139; 3 L. G. R. 304; 20 Cox, C. C. 779; 21 T. L. R. 235-D.

Weight of, in Evidence.]—R. sold milk to H., which was stated to be purchased for analysis, and the milk was duly divided into parts, as required by the statute; and on analysis the certificate of the analyst, after stating the constituents, said the milk was adulterated with 20 per cent. of water. R. being charged with selling adulterated milk, the analyst's certificate was given in evidence, and R. gave no evidence to contradict it, but the magistrate, thinking that the state of the milk might be explained by it standing several hours in a large can, and the best milk at the top ladled out before the purchase, dismissed the summons:--Held, the magistrate was wrong, and as there was no evidence to contradict

the certificate of the analyst, he ought to have acted on it, and convicted R. Harrison v. Richards, 45 J. P. 552.

Upon the true construction of s. 21 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the certificate of the analyst is, at the hearing of a proceeding under the Act, sufficient, but not conclusive, evidence of the facts stated therein, and it is the duty of the justices to accept it as evidence and weigh it together with the other evidence for the prosecution upon the one side and any evidence given on behalf of the defendant upon the other side, and to come to a conclusion upon the fact of the adulteration of the food or drug upon a consideration of the whole of the evidence before them. Hewitt v. Taylor, 65 L. J., M. C. 68; [1896] 1 Q. B. 287; 74 L. T. 51; 44 W. R. 431; 18 Cox, C. C. 226; 60 J. P. 311.

The respondent was charged under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, with unlawfully selling to the prejudice of the purchaser new milk adulterated with 14.4 per cent. of water. The analyst's certificate was put in, and stated that the milk "contained. non-fatty solids, 7.28 per cent.; fat, 2.50 per cent. Observations: When judged by the Sale of Milk Regulations, 1901, the said sample shows a deficiency of non-fatty solids corresponding to an addition of 14.4 per cent. of water. No evidence was called for the respondent. The justices found as a fact that the adulteration of this milk by the addition of 14.4 per cent. of water had not been established, and they dismissed the charge:-Held, that the justices were wrong, as the certificate of the analyst was evidence of the offence charged until displaced by evidence to the contrary. Elder v. Dryden, 99 L. T. 20; 72 J. P. 355; 6 L. G. R. 786-D.

[ocr errors]

however, as to whether a technical offence had not been committed, but considering that, if it had, it was in the absence of fraud, of too trifling a nature to merit a penalty, they discharged the accused under s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879-Held, that the justices need state no case, for though technically of the analyst's certificate, yet they were not wrong in not hearing evidence in contradiction bound to discard their own particular knowledge of and acquaintance with the subject-matter of the complaint, founded on practical experience:-Held, further, that fraud was no element of an offence under s. 6 of the Food and

Drugs Act, 1875, and had the justices entertained the question of fraud they would have been wrong; but that, in determining whether they should act under s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, they could take the fact of absence of fraud into their consideration. R. v. Field, White, Ex p., 64 L. J., M. C. 158.

Justices are not bound, upon the hearing of a complaint under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, to discard their own knowledge of the properties of the article alleged to be adulterated, although such knowledge be derived from a report upon the particular article by authorities at Somerset House, which report has been produced by the defendant for the mere cross-examination of the analyst, and is not in evidence in the proceedings. R. v. Field (64 L. J., M. C. 158) followed. Shortt v. Robinson, 68 L. J., Q. B. 352; 80 L. T. 261; 63 J. P. 295; 139 Cox, C. C. 243-D.

Obstruction of Inspector of Food and Drugs-Mens Rea.]-The offence created by s. 16 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, is one of intentional misconduct involving personal mens rea. Taylor v. Nixon, [1910]2 Ir. R. 94 -K. B. D.

Where an inspector of food and drugs required a sample of whisky from a particular bottle, and the husband of the publican, who, the justices found, was at the time acting as her manager, while pretending to uncork it, deliberately broke the bottle, but the justices did not find that he did so at the request or with the authority or connivance of his wife, nor was there any evidence to the effect:Held, that a conviction against the wife for wilful obstruction of the inspector could not be sustained. Ib.

Refusal to Supply Sample of Milk.]— Under s. 17 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, an inspector is entitled to demand to be supplied in the same manner as the public are being supplied, and consequently if a dairyman, supplying milk to the public by retail from cans, refuses to supply an inspector on demand with milk except from the top of one of the cans instead of from the can from which the public are being supplied, he is guilty of a contravention of the enactment. A dairyman so refusing to supply an inspector has not wilfully obstructed and impeded the inspector in the course of his duty within s. 16 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899. Soutar v. Kerr, [1907] S. C. (J.) 49—Ct. of Just.

Justices' Own Knowledge.] Upon the hearing of a complaint under s. 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, justices, applying their own special knowledge of the article alleged to be adulterated, and without hearing evidence in contradiction of the public analyst's certifi- | cate, considered that the case came within The respondent, an inspector under the Sale the proviso to the section. Being doubtful, of Food and Drugs Acts, asked the appellant

[ocr errors]

4. PERSONS LIABLE.

for new milk from a two-gallon can which the appellant was carrying. The appellant thereupon upset the contents of the can into the road, and having done so, said, "I was not going to let you have skimmed milk for new." The can, which in fact had contained skimmed milk which the appellant stated he was about to deliver to persons who were his regular customers for skimmed milk, had no label or mark upon it stating that it contained skimmed milk. The justices having convicted the appellant on an information against him for having refused to sell milk to the respondent :Held, quashing the conviction, that there was no evidence that the appellant had offered or exposed for sale as new milk the milk which the respondent demanded to be supplied with,

and further that s. 11 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, does not apply to milk carried round for sale in an ordinary can, but only to condensed milk, and therefore that the twogallon can in question did not require to be labelled under that section. French v. Card, 101 L. T. 428; 73 J. P. 389; 7 L. G. R. 890

D.

66

The respondent, who kept an eating house, had on the counter in his shop a pan labelled "Pure milk." The appellant, who was an inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, asked to be supplied with a glass of milk from the counter pan for the purpose of analysis. The respondent's servant refused to serve him, as he did not sell milk alone, the milk being on the premises only for the purpose of being added to cups of tea, coffee, cocoa, or glasses of soda water:-Held, that the milk was exposed to sale, or on sale by retail" within the meaning of s. 17 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, not withstanding that it was only sold mixed with something else, and that therefore the respondent was guilty of the offence under s. 17 of the Act of 1875 of refusing to sell to an inspector an article of food" exposed to sale or on sale by retail" in his shop. McNair v. Terroni, 84 L. J., K. B. 357; [1915] 1 K. B. 526; 112 L. T. 503; 79 J. P. 219; 13 L. G. R. 377; 31 T. L. R. 82-D.

Purchase of Margarine from Retail Dealer for Analysis-Admissibility of Certificate in Proceedings against WholeLale Dealer.]-Where a wholesale dealer has sold an article as butter to a retail dealer

in the ordinary course of business, and the retail dealer has subsequently sold, on his own account, a portion of the article as butter to an inspector of weights and measures purchasing for analysis, the analyst's certificate of the analysis of such portion is not admissible in proceedings by the inspector against the wholesale dealer under s. 6 of the Margarine Act, 1887, as evidence that the article sold by him was margarine. Tyler v. Kingham, 69 L. J., Q. B. 630; [1900] 2 Q. B. 413; 83 L. T. 169; 64 J. P. 598; 16 T. L. R. 394-D.

Certificate Obtained in Another Proceeding.]-P., a retail dealer in milk, had been successfully prosecuted for selling adulterated milk which she had innocently purchased from B., a wholesale dealer in milk. She then

prosecuted B., giving in evidence the certificate of analysis which had been used in the prosecution against herself; but not any certificate of analysis made on her own behalf. No copy of any certificate of analysis was served on B. with the summons. B. having been convicted:

Held, that the conviction could not be sustained. R. v. Mahony, [1909] 2 Ir. R. 490K. B. D.

[ocr errors]

Vinegar Sufficiency of Analyst's Certificate.]-In proceedings against the respondent, under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling vinegar not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded, the analyst's certificate, which was in the form prescribed by the Schedule to the Act, stated that the sample analysed contained 2.91 per cent. of acetic acid, and the following "observations were added: "Normal vinegar contains at least 4 per cent. of acetic acid. This sample, therefore, is deficient in acetic acid to the extent of 27.2 per cent. of the minimum quantity which normal vinegar contains. This is equivalent to the presence in the sample of 27.2 per cent. of excess water." No notice was given by the respondent requiring the analyst to be called as a witness, nor did the respondent give any evidence to rebut the statement in the certificate as to the quantity of acetic acid which normal vinegar contains. The justices dismissed the information on the ground that there was no evidence that a standard had been laid down as to the constituent parts of vinegar, and that, in the absence of such evidence, the statement in the analyst's certificate as to normal vinegar containing at least 4 per cent. of acetic acid was unauthorised, and could not be acted upon:-Held, that the justices were wrong, inasmuch as by the form of certificate given in the schedule to the Act the analyst was entitled to insert the observation as to the quantity of acetic acid in normal vinegar; and as there was no evidence to contradict the certificate, the justices ought to have acted upon it, and convicted the respondent. Robinson v. Newman, 86 L. J., K. B. 814; 117 L. T. 96; 81 J. P. 187; 15 L. G. R. 475-D.

4. PERSONS LIABLE.

Sale by Person "-Limited Company.]— A limited company are liable to be convicted, under s. 20, sub-s. 6, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, for giving to a purchaser a false warranty in writing in respect of an article of food or drug sold by the company as principal or agent. Chuter v. Freeth & Pocock, 80 L. J., K. B. 1322; [1911] 2 K. B. 832; 105 L. T. 238; 75 J. P. 430; 9 L. G. R. 1055; 27 T. L. R. 467; 22 Cox, C. C. 573-D.

Master-Uuauthorised Act of Servant.] -A servant of the appellants sold lard adulterated with foreign matter without a proper label indicating its character. On the hearing of a summons against the appellants under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, it was proposed on behalf of the appellants, to call evidence to shew that the action of the servant was contrary to their express instructions. The justices refused to admit the evidence :---Held,

4. PERSONS LIABLE.

that the statute does not make a master responsible for the unauthorised acts of his servant, and that the evidence should have been admitted. Kearley v. Tonge, 60 L. J., M. C. 159; 65 L. T. 261; 56 J. P. 72; 17 Cox, C. C. 328.

Sale by Servant-No Evidence of Master's Knowledge or Connivance.]-P., a servant of the appellant, was employed to sell milk out of cans by retail. The cans were received by the appellant, the master, on arrival from the country, and a sample taken

from each can before it was sent out for sale. The appellant had published a warning to his servants that any servant whose can of milk did not correspond with the sample taken from it would be liable to instant dismissal. P.'s can was duly sampled, and the sample proved to be unadulterated. Subsequently to his taking out the can for the sale of milk, P. admitted watering the milk, some of which milk he sold to an inspector, who thereupon summoned the appellant, the master, as a person selling to the prejudice of the purchaser an article of food not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded," under the terms of s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. The appellant was convicted by a magistrate and fined the full penalty:-Held, that the appellant was rightly convicted on the ground that he was the seller within the meaning of the Act, and was liable for his servant's action in selling adulterated milk:-Held, further, that the fact of the sale of adulterated milk was sufficient proof of the offence without evidence of any connivance by the appellant, though evidence rebutting connivance might properly be admitted by the magistrate with a view to mitigate any penalty he might otherwise have thought fit to impose. Brown v. Foot, 61 L. J., M. C. 110; 66 L. T. 649; 17 Cox, C. C. 509; 56 J. P. 581.

The servant of C., a dairyman, being short of milk, bought two gallons from another dairy. man, and, having mixed it with his own, sold the same to customers :-Held, that the fact that neither C. nor his servant knew or had reason to suspect the milk was adulterated was no defence to a summons under s. 9 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Morris v. Corbett, 56 J. P. 649.

Servant.-A local foreman in the service of a company may be convicted of adulterating milk under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Hotchin v. Hindmarsh, 60 L. J., M. C. 146; [1891] 2 Q. B. 181; 65 L. T. 149; 39 W. R. 607; 55 J. P. 775.

Liability of Master for Unauthorised Act of Servant.]-The respondent, a grocer, while his assistant was out of the shop, had made up for his own use a half-pound packet consisting of a mixture of butter and margarine. This packet was inadvertently left upon the counter while the respondent went to attend to a customer in another part of the shop, but it was not placed there for the purpose of sale. The respondent's assistant then came in, and immediately afterwards a man came in and asked for half a pound of salt butter, and was

served by the assistant with the same halfpound of mixed butter and margarine. The assistant, seeing the half-pound packet lying on the counter ready-made, thought that it was there for the purpose of sale, but in selling it he was acting without the authority and contrary to the express instructions of the respondent that he was to sell butter always from the bulk and not in ready-made packages. Upon an information against the respondent under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling an article which was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded: -Held, that the respondent was liable for the act of his servant, even though such act was unauthorised by him and was done contrary to his express instructions, and that he ought to have been convicted. Houghton v. Mundy, 103 L. T. 60; 74 J. P. 377; 8 L. G. R. 838-D. Sale of Milk-Registration of Purveyor in One District-Sale of Milk from Barrow in Another District.]-The respondent registered as a purveyor of milk in the borough of St. P. He sold a pennyworth of milk from a churn on a handcart in the borough of St. M. :Held, that this was not carrying on the trade of a purveyor of milk in the borough of St. M. Emerton v. Hall, 102 L. T. 889; 74 J. P. 301; 8 L. G. R. 686—D.

was

"Carrying on Trade of Purveyor of Milk " -Small Quantity of Milk Sold at Refreshment Buffet-Necessity for Registration.]The appellants were the occupiers of a refreshment buffet at a railway station in London, and among other articles sold there by them was milk, which they obtained from a firm of F. & Sons, who undertook to supply it guaranteed pure and to convey it to the appellants as they might require. The sale of milk by the appellants at the buffet in question was extremely small, amounting to about three or four glasses per week, the takings for milk being about 4d. out of £50 per week. In no circumstances was milk sold for consumption off the premises, but it was never refused when asked for for consumption on the premises :— Held, that the appellants did not at the buffet in question "carry on the trade of purveyors of milk" within the meaning of the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order, 1885, and therefore that it was not necessary for them to be registered as purveyors of milk in respect of that buffet. Spiers & Pond, Lim. v. Green, 82 L. J., K. B. 26; [1912] 3 K. B. 576; 77 J. P. 11; 10 L. G. R. 1050; 29 T. L. R. 14-D.

Sale by Shop Assistant-Company Carrying on Business Liability of Director and Principal Shareholder.]-Butter containing margarine was sold to the respondent's representative by an assistant at a shop of which a limited company were the proprietors. The appellant, a director of the company, was practically the only shareholder. He was also the secretary and general manager of the company's business, but was not on the premises at the time of the sale. Upon an information charging the appellant with an offence under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the justices found that the assistant was a person employed by the appellant as a salesman,

5. PROSECUTION.

and convicted the appellant of the offence charged :-Held, that the assistant was em. ployed, not by the appellant, but by the company, which was a separate entity, and that the appellant was therefore improperly convicted. Booth v. Helliwell, 83 L. J., K. B. 1548; [1914] 3 K. B. 252; 111 L. T. 542; 78 J. P. 223; 12 L. G. R. 940; 24 Cox, C. C. 361; 30 T. L. R. 529-D.

Unauthorised Sale by Servant.]-In the prosecution of a dairyman for selling, by the hand of his servant, milk which was not genuine, it was proved that the servant who sold the milk had no authority to do so, his duty being merely to deliver milk to his master's customers :-Held, that as the servant had exceeded his authority in selling the milk, there had been no sale by the accused, and that he must therefore be acquitted. Lindsay v. Dempster, [1912] S. C. (J.) 110-Ct. of Just. Milk Watered in Transit- Seller's

Liability for Acts of Strangers.]-A dairyfarmer, under contract for the sale and delivery of pure unskimmed milk by rail, carriage paid, to the purchaser, at a London railway terminus,

is liable to be convicted of an offence under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, as

amended by s. 3 of the Amendment Act, 1879, if, on its arrival at the London platform, a sample of the milk be found, after analysis at the instance of an inspector under the Acts, to contain a percentage of added water, although such adulteration was wholly without the knowledge or connivance of the farmer, his servants or employees, and could only have been effected by some one, a stranger to him, after the milk had been placed in the train and during its transit from the country station to the London terminus. Parker v. Alder, 68 L. J., Q. B. 7; [1899] 1 Q. B. 20; 79 L. T. 381; 47 W. R. 142; 62 J. P. 772; 19 Cox, C. C. 191; 15 T. L. R. 3D.

on

Delivery of Genuine Milk to Railway Company Deficiency in Milk Fat Arrival-Responsibility of Vendor.]-The combined effect of s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and s. 3 of the Amending Act, 1879, is that, on the sale of milk, an inspector of nuisances may procure at the place of delivery any sample of such milk in course of delivery to the purchaser, and if he the inspector-suspects the milk not to be of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the purchaser, he shall cause it to be analysed and take legal proceedings against the vendor as if the milk had been purchased by the inspector from the vendor. Where a farmer, under a contract of sale of pure milk, delivered at a railway station genuine milk for dispatch by rail to the purchaser, and the milk was found by an inspector of nuisances, on reaching the arrival station, to be deficient in milk fat and other solids, and there was no evidence before the justices that it was not tampered with on the journey, it was held, by a Divisional Court, that the mere fact that the milk was genuine at the time when it was handed over to the railway company did not relieve the farmer from liability for selling milk not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by

the purchaser under the above sections. Parker v. Alder (68 L. J., Q. B. 7; [1899] 1 Q. B. 20) followed. Andrews v. Luckin, 87 L. J., K. B. 507; 117 L. T. 726; 82 J. P. 31; 16 L. G. R. 199; 34 T. L. R. 33; 26 Cox, C. C. 124-—D.

Adulteration with Water-Authority of Agent to Sell or Merely to DeliverLiability of Seller.]-A farmer, who supplied certain customers regularly with milk, gave his daughter general instructions to take the milk, as it was set aside, and deliver it at the houses of the customers. Milk having so been set aside for two customers, the girl took it in order to deliver it at the houses of these customers. On the way an inspector of police required her to sell him some of the milk, and on analysis it was found to be adulterated by the addition of water. On a prosecution against the farmer under s. 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling an article not of the justices dismissed the information:-Held the nature, substance, and quality demanded, (Avory, J., dissenting), that the justices were right in not convicting, as no authority had been

given to the defendant's daughter to sell the milk, but only to deliver it to customers. Lindsay v. Dempster ([1912] S. C. (J.) 110) approved, and principle applied. Houghton v. Munday (103 L. T. 60; 74 J. P. 377; 8 L. G. R. 838) distinguished. Whittaker v. Forshaw, 88 320; 83 J. P. 210; 17 L. G. R. 457; 63 S. J. 608; L. J., K. B. 989; [1919] 2 K. B. 419; 121 L. T. 26 Cox, C. C. 475; 35 T. L. R. 487-D.

5. PROSECUTION.

Jurisdiction of Justices.]-The prosecution of offenders under s. 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, must take place before justices of the peace having jurisdiction within the district where the offence was actually committed. An inspector of nuisances can he is not appointed, nor can an analyst not neither procure a sample in a district for which appointed to act for such district give a valid certificate. [1896] 1 Q. B. 596; 74 L. T. 348; 44 W. R. R. v. Smith, 65 L. J., M. C. 104; 492; 18 Cox, C. C. 307; 60 J. P. 372.

Jurisdiction of Justices. Outside Area.]— The jurisdiction of justices is not extended by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, s. 20, sub-s. 5, so as to include proceedings under s. 20, sub-s. 6, for giving a false warranty against a warrantor, who has given a warranty outside the area included in their jurisdiction, where the person who has received the warranty has also been prosecuted under s. 20, sub-s. 6, for giving a false warranty, and has been discharged under the provisions of that sub-section. Manners v. Tyler, 71 L. J., K. B. 585; [1902] 1 K. B. 901; 86 L. T. 716; 50 W. R. 604; 66 J. P. 806; 20 Cox, C. C. 222-D.

Jurisdiction of Justices-Place of Delivery County Petty Sessional Division. ]--The provision in s. 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, that proceedings may be taken for an offence against the Act "before any justices in petty sessions assembled having jurisdiction in the place where the article or drug sold was actually delivered to the purchaser," authorises

5. PROSECUTION.

the taking of proceedings in any part of the county in which delivery took place, and does not require that they should be taken in the particular petty sessional division in which delivery took place. R. v. Beacontree Justices; R. v. Wright, 84 L. J., K. B. 2230; [1915] 3 K. B. 388; 113 L. T. 727; 79 J. P. 461; 13 L. G. R. 1094; 31 T. L. R. 509-D.

Sample Procured by Agent-Proceedings in Name of Inspector.]-Under s. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1879, an inspector may obtain by an agent a sample for analysis of milk in course of delivery; and in such a case a prosecution in respect of the milk from which the sample was taken may competently be instituted in the name of the inspector. Tyler v. Dairy Supply Co., 98 L. T. 867; 72 J. P. 132; 6 L. G. R. 422; 21 Cox, C. C. 612-D.

Prosecutions by Officers of Local Government Board and Board of Agriculture as Private Purchasers.]-The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, confers on the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture, and the corresponding Boards in Scotland and Ireland, powers, in default of action by the local authority, to institute proceedings at the instance of their officers against persons infringing the provisions of the Sale by Food and Drugs Acts, and prescribes the procedure to be followed in such prosecutions:-Held, that the exercise of these powers is optional, and not obligatory; that the officers of these boards are entitled to institute proceedings as private individuals in the method prescribed by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and that they are not limited in prosecutions at their instance to the procedure prescribed by the Act of 1899. Falconer v. Whyte, [1908] S. C. (J.) 40-Ct. of Just.

Right of Local Inspector to Prosecute in his Own Name.]-Where, under s. 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1899, the Local Govern

ment Board or Board of Agriculture, through their officer, procure samples of an article of food for analysis, and communicate the certified result of the analysis, when made, to the secretary of the local authority, such secretary may, without any special resolution, transmit such certificate to the inspector appointed under the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and he, without antecedent authorisation, may proceed in his own name to prosecute for any penalties to which the vendor may be liable. Connor v. Butler, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 569-K. B. D.

[ocr errors]

Information by Inspector Proof of Appointment.]-The appellant preferred an information against the respondent under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling whisky which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the appel. lant. On the hearing before the justices the appellant stated that he was an inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. He was not cross-examined as to his appointment, nor asked to produce it. The respondent's solicitor thereupon contended that it was necessary for the appellant to produce his appointment as inspector, and that, as he had not done so, the case should be dismissed. The justices were

of opinion that it was necessary that the appellant should have formally proved his appointment, and dismissed the information, refusing an application for an adjournment :-Held, that, assuming that it was necessary for the appellant to prove his appointment as inspector, there was sufficient prima facie evidence before the justices that he was an inspector, and that they were wrong in dismissing the information. Ross v. Helm, 82 L. J., K. B. 1322; [1913] 3 K. B. 462; 107 L. T. 829; 77 J. P. 13; 11 L. G. R. 36; 23 Cox, C. C. 248-D.

Semble (per Channell, J., and Avory, J.), that upon an information under s. 6 of the Act of 1875 it is unnecessary for the informant to prove that he is an inspector. Ib.

By Constable Proof of Authority.]— Where a police constable prosecutes for adulteration of food it is not necessary for him to prove, as a condition precedent, that he was directed to prosecute by the local authority appointing him such constable. Hale v. Cole, 55 J. P. 376.

Prosecution Instituted by Officer of Local Authority not Empowered to Appoint Analyst.]-The jurisdiction of justices to hear and determine an information under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, where the prosecution is instituted by an officer of a local authority acting by the directions of the local authority is not affected by the question whether it was or was not intra vires of the local authority to give their officer such directions. It is enough to give the justices jurisdiction that the officer was in fact the person who procured the sample and obtained the analysis. Worthington v. Kyme, 93 L. T. 546; 54 W. R. 185; 3 L. G. R. 1098; 69 J. P. 390; 21 Cox, C. C. 37-D.

Several Informations in respect of One Delivery.]-The appellant contracted with guardians to supply milk daily throughout the year. The contract provided that the milk should be new milk, free from adulteration,

yielding seven degrees of cream, the milk to be tested on each delivery, and a deduction made of 1d. per gallon for each degree of cream short under six degrees. As the appellant's servant was in the act of delivering a day's supplyseventy gallons in five separate cans-the inspector of weights and measures procured one sample from each can under s. 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879. Upon analysis of the samples it was found that in two cases one half of the cream had been abstracted. Upon these facts two informations were laid against the appellant for offences under s. 9 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and the justices convicted the appellant upon each-Held, that, although there was but one sale in each day as between the appellant and the guardians, each sale of a sample to the police officer was a separate sale, and an information could be laid in respect of each, and that these sales were unaffected by the terms of the contract between the appellant and the guardians, and that the appellant was therefore rightly convicted. Fecitt v. Walsh,

« EelmineJätka »