§ Mr. LUNDON
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many prosecutions have been instituted in Great Britain annually during the past five
Year. Nature of Article. Offence Whether a conviction was obtained. Penalties imposed. 1907 … … Eggs (1) Having in possession for sale, eggs to which a false trade description was applied. (2) Sale of Danish eggs as Irish. Yes 20s. on each charge-and £10 10s. costs. 1908 … … Bacon Falsely applying the trade description, Irish, to two pieces of bacon, which were in fact American. Yes £10 and £21 costs. Butter Describing "factory" butter as "creamery." " £5 and £26 5s. costs. " " " " £2 10s. and £5 5s. costs. " " " " £2 and £26 5s. costs. Condensed Milk. Falsely describing Dutch condensed milk as Irish. No. (Case dismissed without costs.) — 1909 … … Eggs Falsely describing eggs as Irish. Yes £1 1s. and £3 3s. costs. 1910 … … Bacon Falsely describing bacon as Irish. Yes 10s. and costs. " " " " £8 19s. (including costs). Eggs Falsely describing eggs as Irish. " Fines amounting in the aggregate to£20 and costs.
years against traders and merchants who have been trading in goods supposed to be of Irish manufacture; in how many cases were convictions obtained; what was the nature of the penalties imposed; whether the names of those found guilty of fraud will be given; what was the nature of the fraud; and whether he will consider the possibility of amending the Act in such a way that such parties could be prosecuted under the criminal law?
§ Sir E. STRACHEY
The power of the Board to institute proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Acts is restricted to cases relating to agricultural or horticultural produce which affect the general interests of the country or of a section of the community or of a trade. During the past five years ten prosecutions have been instituted in cases of the class to which the hon. Member refers and nine convictions have been obtained. The following statement will give the detailed information for which the hon. Member asks, but it would be contrary to well-established practice for the names of the defendants to be given:—