Samuel William SEATON^[1]

Abt 1831 - 263

• Name	Samuel William SEATON
  Died	1st Qtr 1907, 1a, 263	Fulham District, Middlesex, England
  Born	Abt 1831	Walham Green, Fulham, Middlesex, England
  Gender	Male
  _UID	A0BB01D2A90A0C4CAEDE23A1C3EAE3F7102B
  Person ID	I1864	Chamberlain Family
  Last Modified	1 Dec 2017

  
  

  Father	William SEATON,   b. Abt 1806, St. Luke's, Middlesex, England ,   d. 3rd Qtr 1879, 1a, 136, Fulham District, Middlesex, England
  Mother	Sarah Susannah VAUGHAN,   b. 24 Oct 1793, Mitcham, Surrey, England ,   d. Dec Qtr., 1865, vol 1a, page 117, Kensington District, Middlesex, England
  Married	30 Jun 1828	St. Paul, Hammersmith, Middlesex, England
  _UID	D53216CD7C08A146B731EC129E3765D54A70
  Family ID	F240	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

  Family	Isabella MERCER,   d. 2nd Qtr 1888, 1a, 186 (52 yrs), Fulham District, Middlesex, England
  Married	Mar Qtr 1857, 1a, p18	Kensington Dist, Middlesex, England
  _UID	EC70B2D9A851DF439C0A8EAA24CDADCA4864
  Children	1. Samuel SEATON,   b. Abt 1858, Chelsea, Middlesex, England ,   d. pre-1877  (Age 19 years)   2. Fanny SEATON,   b. Abt 1862, London City, Middlesex, England   3. James SEATON,   b. Abt 1864, London City, Middlesex, England   4. Herbert SEATON,   b. Abt 1866, London City, Middlesex, England   5. Minnie SEATON,   b. Abt 1869, Notting Hill, Kensington, Middlesex, England   6. Jane L. SEATON,   b. Abt Jan 1871, Notting Hill, Kensington, Middlesex, England   7. Isabella SEATON,   b. Abt 1873, Notting Hill, Middlesex, England   8. Samuel SEATON,   b. Abt 1877, Notting Hill, Middlesex, England   9. Rose SEATON,   b. Abt 1880, Fulham, Middlesex, England   10. Albert SEATON,   b. Abt 1882, Fulham, Middlesex, England
  Last Modified	15 May 2022
  Family ID	F727	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Notes

  In the London Times (date, unfortunately, not recorded) At West London, an important case dealing with the trade of butchers came before Mr. Plowden. Samuel William Seaton, a butcher, carrying on business at 603 King's-road, Fulham, was summoned by the Fulham Vestry for exposing for sale two pieces of meat which were unsound, unwholesome, and unfit for the food of man. Mr. Denselow, the clerk to the vestry, who attended to support the summons, said the proceedings were tken under the Nuisances Removal Act. William Henry Grigg, inspector of nuisances, said that on June 30 last he visited the defendant's slaughter-house, and in an ice-house there he found about 60 joints of meat, two of which were unfit for the food of man. The joints were removed to the police-court, and the magistrate ordered them to be condemned. Since the issue of the summons he had seen the defendant, who informed him that he had dismissed his manager for allowing the meat to remain in the ice-house. Mr. Paul Taylor, addressing the magistrate, said he appeared on behalf of the London Butcher Trade Society, as the case was looked upon as one of considerable importance. If the magistrate convicted in this case he would be striking a severe blow at the butchers of the metropolis. His contention was that the meat was not exposed for sale. The meat was placed in the ice-house for preservation, and it was only on condition that the meat was preserved that it would be exposed for sale. it was obvious that, when meat was exposed for sale during the whole of a sultry day, it might not show signs of being bad at the end of the dy, but they would rapidly develop. if the magistrate convicted, every butcher in London might be guilty of a contravention of the Act. William Coggan, a butcher, of Bond-street, explained the practice of the trade. he said it was the custom for butchers to place unsold meat in ice-houses simply for preservation purposes. Maggots quickly developed, but they were no sign of unsoundness. The witness added that the question was one of life and death for butchers. Another butcher mentioned that Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Local Government Board, has been asked to amend the clause of the Act so as to prevent summonses of this kind. Mr. Plowden said that, after the decision in the case of "Mallinson v. Carr", it was clear that it was not necessary for the meat to be exposed for sale to constitute an offence under the Act. He was of opinion that, inasmuch as the meat was upon the premises and not destroyed, it was intended for human food. He thought it was a case of neglect, and, therefore, should not impose more than a nominal penalty of 10s. on each joint. On the application of Mr. Taylor, the fine was increased to GB4 in order that there may be an appeal.

  
  

• Sources

  [S9] 1861 Census, England and Wales, Office of National Statistics, General Register Office, Kew, Surrey, England, (Name: U.S.A., Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah;), RG9. 229, fol. 86, pg. 21, St. Stephen's, Coleman Street, London, England. Enumeration Schedule No. 121, Bell Alley, Samuel Seaton, head, married, 29, pork butcher, born Fulham, Middlesex Isabella Seaton, wife, married, 24, born Fulham, Middlesex Samuel Seaton, son, unmarried, 3, born Chelsea, Middlesex Isabella Ditcher, visitor, unmarried, 20, general servant, born St. Luke's, Middlesex