BREACHES OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1858, 16 December 1874, Page 2

BREACHES OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

E. H. POWEB V. WILLIAM BEBBY. This was a case brought by the Inspector of Vacciiiation for thedistrict. William Berry was charged with that he was the fatbei of a child, Arthur James Berry, and that lie had neglected to procure the vaccination of that child within the specified time, that he had neglected to take ifc for inspection, and j had not transmit ted the certificate of successful vaccination. --.-- r --. ; -----

Mr Macdonald drew the attention of the Court to the fact of there being three offences disclosed in the information. ,;

His Worship said he would amend the information by striking out the two former, and leaving the charge of having neglected to transmit the certificate. Mr Macdonald submitted that the Court had no power to amend the information, and referred His Worship to sections 4, 5, and 6, of the Justices of the Peace Act. The information should be for one offence only ; this was for more than one offence, and His Worship had no jurisdiction. The Amendment section only referred to^such cases as the Coart had power to deal-with. r ■ His Worship said it would be as easy to amend that information as to strike it not, and make a fresh one. He did not wish to let these informations fall through on account of mere technicalities.

Mr Macdonald produced a certificate given by Dr Payne to Mr Berry. It appeared that Mr Berry had' been unable to get the certificate owing to the absence in England of i?r Fox, who had performed the vaccination.

Mr Berry said he had to go to expense in procuring the present certificate. On the advice of his Worship Mr Power marked the- certificate- received, and the case was struck out.'

SAME V CHAS. W. CUtNTKT.

The information in this case was also informal, but was struck out and a new one laid, and after considerable argument on the part of counsel, His Worship imposed a fine of 5s and costs. SAME V JOHN HBNDY. Defendant produced his certificate, and and said he bad paid Dr Lethbridge 5s for vaccinating the child. His Worship said a public vaccinttor had no right to accept fees for private vaccination, and told Mr. Power to lay an information against Dr. Lethbridge for not forwarding the certificate. His Worship adjourned the case, in order that no mistake should be made as to the responsible p*rty. SAME V JOHN BHOWN. In this case the circumstances were similar to those of the previous case, and the hearing was postponed accordingly.

CASES WITHDBAWH".

Charges of neglect in the matter of Taccination against the following were withdrawn:— Frederick A. Pulleine, Alexander Dewar, Joshua Adlam, Chas. Joynt, Joseph C. Williams, Valentine Savage, Henry Dal ton, Thomas Hammond, and Isaac B. Cooper. The Court adjourned.