| |
Forum
Shocking Eardley Revelation
Posted By: Robert Mayer
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 3:45 a.m.
Unwholesome Meat
Mr Robert Eardley, of High Street, Tunstall, eating-house keeper, was charged at the instance of the Local Board of Health with having in his possession, on the 16th July, a ham and a piece of brawn,"diseased, unsound, unwholesome, and unfit for the food of man"; and in another case with having exposed for sale part of a leg of pork or ham, unfit for food.
Mr Salt appeared on behalf of the Local Board and Mr E Tennant for the defendant.
In one case the meat was exposed in the shop window and in the other case it was found in the cellar. After a brief, opening arguement, the case of 'exposing' was taken first.
Francis Moss, a potter living at Pitt's Hill deposed to go into the defendant's shop on Tunstall Wakes Saturday, the 16th ult. He purchased four pennyworth of pork and bread, and he found the pork so bad, that he could not eat it, and gave information about it.
Thomas Emberton, inspector of nuisances to the Local Board, stated that on the 16th ult.he visited the defendant's shop and found part of a leg of pork in the window. It was in a bad state, had a very offensive smell, and was quite unfit for food.
The defendant (Robert Eardley) said that it was worse than he thought it was, and that the baker had put it into the window without his particular knowledge.
On going into the cellar he (Thomas Emberton) found several cooked hams, one of which was in a very bad state. He also found some brawn that was putrid.
Mr Eardley admitted that it was bad and did not take it away.
Mr Eardley was also a member of the Local Board of Health (!)
Inspector Longden said he saw some meat at Mr Eardley's which smelt very bad and was quite rotten at the centre. He heard Mr Eardley say that he was not aware that it was so bad.
Mr J P Edwards, surgeon, said he was called to see the meat, which was quite unfit for food, and which he condemned.
In judgement it was stated that no guilty knowledge had been proven and Mr Eardley could only be accused of not having taken sufficient precautionary measures and any meat being exposed after it became tainted; but he did not appear to have wilfully exposed bad meat.
The cases must be dismissed; but it was proper for the inspector to bring such cases before the court.
Staffordshire Advertiser 20th Aug 1870.
| |
Forum is maintained by Richard S. with WebBBS 5.12.