RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1763, 27 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. ( Before W. Fhasjjh, Esq., R.M".)

EBEACHES OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT,

Hugh Mcllhone, William C. Wright, George C. Best, John Butt, Frederick Tetley, Soloman Sliappere, Daniel McClaey, and [ Ralph Pennetl, were each charged with having committed a breach of the Public Health Act, by not haying their children properly vaccinated according to the notice. The information or complaint of Edward Henry Povrcr, Vaccinating Inspector, reads as follows :—That —-—," being under 14 years of age, has not been successfully vaccinated, and that'notice has been given 'to the father of the said child to procure its being vaccinated, and that this notice hns been disregarded, 'contrary to the Public Health Act, 1872. POWER T. JI'ILHONE. ■ This was the first case on the list* Mr. Macdonald appeared on, bcfllf of the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The Gazette in which the proclamation I of the district and the. appointment of E. H. Power as Vaccination Officer appeared was put in. Mr. Power stated that the action had been brought in order to give'greater^ publicity to the law on the subject. He had sent the requsite notice, and a certificate of vaccination had not been given. Some difficulty arose as to. the manner of proving the case. Mr. Power said, in answer to Mr. Macdonald, that he had brought the charge under the Act as a whole, and could not specify any clause. Mr. Macdonald contended that Mr. Power should refer them to soma particular section—it was only fair that he should do so. , His Worship said the charge was laid under the 109 th section, for neglecting to take the child to be vaccinated. Mr. Power said ho also relied on the fact of tho defendant having neglected to transmit the necessary certificate. Mr. Macdonald referred to section 105, in which provision is made that a certificate must be transmitted within a specified time only when the vaccination is not performed by the public vaccinator but by a private practitioner. That clause did not affect the present case. E. H. Power, Vaccination * Inspector,' deposed—That ho had forwarded a notice to Hugh Mcllhone to vaccinate his child,Catherine Mcllhone. He sent the notice in form of Bth schedule, and no certificate, of vaccination had been received by him j (witness). He had spoken to Mr. Mc- ; Ilhone two or three times, and that gen- : tleman had asked for time. The certificate had not yet been sent. By Mr. Macdonald—l forwarded the notice on the 12th of May. The age of the child was about 18 months —being born in January, 1873. I did not know before I took these proceedings that the child had been vaccinated. I never told anyone that it was. Mr. Mcllhone did tell mo that the child was vaccinated before I issued the summons, and I mipht have told some one of that information before I issued the summons. I never did say that I knew from personal knowledge. (Mr. Macdonald here asked the witness to point out the section under which the charge was brought, in reply to which witness stated that the actual wording was contained in the 112 th section; but he brought tho action under, the whole Act, and did not confine himself to one particular section. After some further interrogation, witness said tho charge was brought/iarider the 109 th and 112 th sections.) Some discussion ensued as to the particular section or sections of the Act, which would apply to the charge, Mr. Macdonald contending that it was necessary to point to some one. It was finally decided to rest on the latter part of the 109 th. section and 112 th. providing for the case of a person neglecting to take, or cause to be taken, a child to be vaccinated; and for neglecting to give notice of such vaccination if ifc has been performed by any person other than the public vaccinator.; • ■ Charles Lethbridge, public"; vaccinator for the district of S^ortland, deposed— That he knew the child in respeotof which the charge had been brought. The child had been brought to him on the Ist July, 1874. It had been brought before, as nearly as he could recollect early in June ; the operation then being unsuccessful. _ On the second occasion the, vaccination . appeared to be successful. It was the rule when children were vaccinated on the regular day that the child should be brought baclf within seven days from this datol He had given a certificate to Mr. Mcllhone on the 2lßt of August. The child had not been brought back again. He was aware of the' clause which made it imperative for tho public vaccinator to deliver to sucln person a notice requiring him to appear again before the public vaccinator in order that the result might be ascertained^ The first occasion of the childVbeirg'vacpinated was before pie 12th of June; but he would not swear to the date. • Mr. Power cross-examined the witness; The certificate was here put in, ' His Worship said it appeared that Mr. Ppwer ought to have brought the action against the Public Vaccinator. The duty of the parent had peased with the Vaccination of the child. Mr. Mcllhone had succeeded in proving that: and it was therefore tho neglect of the Public Vaccinator, who had not sent the notice within

the prescribed time. Mr. Power would do well to at once to have Dr. Lethbridgo up, that he might be fined for nrclefct of duty. . h Dr. Leljibridge said ho could not bs running all over the croldficld to find the parents of the children. Mr. Mcllhone had neglected to bring (ho child back within the seven days, and he could not have sent in the notice on that account. His Worship in referring again to the Act, came upon Clauso 108, which provided for ihc imposition of n penalty of 4Oa. on the pannt'sueglect.ng lo take the child to the public vaccinator within seven days after the operation hnd been performed. Mr. Macdonald said they were charged with neglecting to vaccinte tho child within Ihc month. They had cleared themselves of that; and now it appeared that the only oflbnee (not named in the charge).that they were guilty of, was the non-lransmissioti or a certificate, which they wore not required to do, as tho child had not owns treated by a private practitioner. y His Worship said that Mr. Power in his capacity should make himself thr&uchly .acquainted with tho Act h«ad to bring the charges under., Th™l,ar«o against Mr. MclJhono was that he had neglected to vaccinate his child: that charge iad fallen through ; and he would dismiss the case. Had the defendant come to Court perfectly clear- ho (His Worship) would have awarded costs. SAME V. WILLIAM C. WRIGHT. The defendant said the child had been vaccinated, but only this morning. Ho had not been aware of the Act. Fined 5s and costs. SA3IK V. J. BUTT. In this case tho defendant pleaded not guilty. •*w iHi P? wcr tos called, and deposed tnat he had sent the neceseary notice. •/ Ihe defendant said the child was not in ant state to be vaccinated ; it had been cutting its teeth. Fined 5s and costs. SAME V. SOLOMAM SHAPFERE. Defendant put in a certificate dated 4th May, and was discharged. SAME V. TETLEY AND M'cLAEY. In each of those cases a fine of 5s and costs was imposed. The Court then adjourned.