“If any building, or place for boiling offal . . . or used for any trade, business, &c., causing effluvia, be at any time certified to the local authority by any Medical Officer to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and that the person carrying on such business shall not have used the best practicable means for abating such nuisance, or preventing or counteracting such effluvia, the person so offending shall, upon a summary conviction for such offence, forfeit and pay a sum of not more than Five Pounds nor less than Forty Shillings, and upon a second conviction for such offence the sum of Ten Pounds, and for each subsequent conviction a sum double the amount of the penalty imposed for the last preceding conviction, but the highest amount of such penalty shall not in any case exceed the sum of Two Hundred Pounds.” Several prosecutions were undertaken successfully—fines varying from Forty Shillings to Five Pounds (including costs) being inflicted. The steps already taken will, it is hoped, prove sufficient, and render unnecessary any further appeal to the law, especially as a notice of your Vestry’s intention to proceed against offenders in every case has been widely distributed in the Potteries. Twenty-four convictions were obtained against old offenders for keeping swine in an improper locality, and Mr. Bridge, one of the magistrates at the Hammersmith police-court, announced his intention of throwing on the defendants in any future cases that might be brought before him, the onus of proving that the pigs were not on the premises on days intervening between the days for which the defendants might be summoned for the offence of keeping pigs in a place under the ban of a “prohibitory order,” the penalty for this offence being Ten Shillings a day. Hitherto we have been required to prove the presence of swine on each day, so that, for example, to obtain in one week penalties to the amount of three pounds, it was necessary to visit the prohibited premises every day in the week. But if Mr. Bridge should feel justified in carrying out his views, it would only be necessary to visit the premises on Monday and Saturday to obtain the same amount of penalties which would be imposed, unless the defendant should be able to prove that the pigs were not on the premises on the intervening days, viz., Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.