§ MR. J. W. TAYLOR (Durham Chester-le Street)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Richard Dixon, of Birtley, was prosecuted under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act of 1867, at Chester-le-Street police court on July 4th, 1906; that the public vaccinator admitted, in evidence, that he had not called to offer vaccination at the home of the child before the cause of complaint arose, viz., before the child attained the age of six months, and that when he did call at the home, after the child had attained the age of seven months, he did so without having previously given twenty-four hours notice of his intended visit, contrary to the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898; and whether he will remit the fines and costs inflicted at Chester-le-Street petty sessions.
§ MR. GLADSTONEThe Justices convicted the defendant of neglecting to have his child vaccinated within six months of birth without rendering any 723 reasonable excuse for such neglect. They took the view that the notice and visit contemplated by Section 1 (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898, are not conditions precedent to a conviction. This is a question of law which I have no authority to determine, but I understand the Justices have agreed to state a case for decision of the High Court, and while the matter is thus sub judice it would be improper for me to interfere.