Putrid Tinned Food.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXIV, Issue 7497, 21 April 1899, Page 4

Putrid Tinned Food.

At Greenwich Police Court recently, Charles W. Baxter, of Camberwell, was summoned in two case 3 for having (1) deposited for sale tinned meat, fish, soup, fruit, and condensed milk, the aame being ucfit for food: and (2) for selling tins ot fish and condensed milk aNo unfit for human food.—Mr Stoke 3 prosecuted and Mr Ceard defended.—Mr Stokes said the defendant sold the business in Paradiße street to a Mrs Grant on November 23. On November 30 Mr Davies, sani'ary inspector, went to the shop, and, at Mrs Grant's reef nest, examined the tins. Ha had to defer pa.tot the examination until next day on account of the smsll Thomas Davies, sanitary inspector, said the premises were kept a3 a general shop. He went to the place on "two or three occasions and seized over 1100 tins of fish, soap, meat, tomitoes, and milk. Thsy stank badly. Witness cilled the meucal officer of health and sab'e.nsnt'y brought the tins to the magistrate, who condemned the goods.— Mr Kennedy : N es, and 1 was nearly made 6ick. —D.wie-f, cross-examined, said some of the thingi were in the bick premises ; but the greater part w.-re in the shop. There were 444 tins in the scullery, and 239 included in the summons h.id been so'd to Mrs « rant with the business. They were in the shop window. The defendant said lie kept the shop for ten months, and he had no reason to thinks the goods were bad. He had always profcrred to open the tins for customers. He had not noticed any smell from the tins. Mr Davie3 (re-called) slid some of t'ne tins wore what were known as " blown" tins By a careful contrivance the bad gas was extracted from the tins and the pin prick sealed over. V. r Kennedy said the3e were horrible revelations of what could ba sold to the poor people of Rotherhithe. Defendant's suspicions must have been aroused, and he had not satisfied him (the Magistrate). The sale of this stuff in a poor neighborhood could not be pissed off lightly, and defendant would be fined LSO in each of the two cases, or one month in each. If he could find the man who pricked the blown tins he would give him six months. Notice of appeal was given.