§ MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case decided in the Westminster Police Court by the sitting Magistrate, Mr. Newton, on the 10th February, when the Magistrate fined Mr. Armfield for the non-vaccination of his child, though he proved that he had transmitted, according to the statute, to the vaccination officer a certificate from a registered medical practitioner "that the child was not in a fit state to be successfully vaccinated," as it was suffering from an eruptive attack; whether such a certificate is not by Law "a reasonable excuse;" whether the same magistrate ordered the defendant into custody until the amount was paid, the penalties being, in the first instance, recoverable by distress and not imprisonment; whether such imprisonment in a police cell, with 1758 ordinary criminals, was lawful; and, whether he will inquire into the case?
§ MR. HIBBERTSir, a Report has been received in this case from the sitting magistrate, who states that he did not consider the certificate furnished by the defendant to be a "reasonable excuse" for his failure to comply with the law. Against this decision the defendant might have appealed, but he did not avail himself of that privilege. The magistrate adds that he did not order the defendant into custody. The latter refused to pay the fine, and the gaoler, thinking that he was responsible for the defendant's safe-keeping, placed him for a few minutes in the cells while he went for instructions to the chief clerk, who directed his immediate discharge. For such temporary detention there would appear to be statutory sanction under Jervis's Act (11 and 12 Vic, c. 43, sec. 20).