THE VACCINATION INSPECTOR.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1928, 9 March 1875, Page 2

THE VACCINATION INSPECTOR.

(To the Editor of the Evening' Star.) -« ( Sib,—l am mach obliged for your candid view of the " Vaccination .cases." You say, that had a solicitor been employed the result might have been different. Just so! but why so ? Therefore, evidently, a miscarrying of justice. My duty is simply—to re.port to the Court that the Act has been evaded;, as a witness, to prore by..my books. $ba>. provisions of the Act hare riot beeti &mpu|d with, and to gire any information at. fllj disposal; then, with the Qolatt^it m "onus" of findins: out;and^iTinjj ita decision whether the omission complained of is so or not; so that, if the Act is majle a nullity or inoperative in any particular ease, blame cannot be (mr_£htt/ — windy verbosity \of Mr Tyler tried to make out —whether he succeeded or not. I care not.to enquire) attached to an officer who has gone the extent of hii orders and as per Act, or became he could not force the Court to admit as evidence—which was material—whit had previously been sworn to before the same Court. If the; ruling of- that Court is that, the case cannot, go on any further^ - because, on the spur of the moment, a particular" ° document or i proof s*of the appointment of a particular officer could not be shown—though the Gazette containing such was in Court—it would clearly be an. act. of supererogation to ' ~ combat it; at any rate, before the decision of the Bench on the whole caie is giren. In short, the whole of the time was consumed m technicalities, and the case never measured by the Act under which it was brought. ....... I do not think the Act is so mystifying as you state; in fact, it gives every facility to the officers appointed under it to ensure the due carrying out of its clauses, provided they have the assistance of the Court.'—lam, &c, . ;'. Edwd. H. Powbb v Vaccination Inspector. Thames, 9th March, 1875.