View report page

66
The case of Borrow v. Rowland, heard in the Queen's Bench, before the
Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Wills, May 15, 1896, defines " obstruction."
The Vestry of Islington had summoned one Howland for " obstruction "
within 54 and 55 Vic., c. 76, sec. 116, because he did not permit the
scavenger to remove the dust. The Magistrate refused to convict, whereupon
the Vestry appealed. Howland appeared and stated that within the short
time from the previous collection there was very little dust, no nuisance, and
that it was an unnecessary' annoyance to collect his refuse once a week.
The Lord Chief Justice stated that the Magistrate ought to have convicted.
If a person was allowed to do as the respondent had done, it would be
impossible to carry out the Act. The act done by the respondent was
clearly wilful, "the obstruction need not take the form of physical violence."
Hence it appears that within reasonable hours every householder in the district
is bound to admit the dustman. It is no answer to say that there is very
little dust, or that the dust does not require removal, or to desire the dustman
to call at some other time. Within the hours stated in the Contract the dustman
has a right to call and look for dust, even though there be no dust
there. This position consequently makes the removal of house refuse
compulsory when the dustman calls.
NUISANCES.
A large number of nuisances of various kinds were dealt with during the
year, and Tabls 10 in the Appendix shows the requirements demanded to
abate them.