View report page

72
After evidence had been obtained as to the use of the premises, the Public Health Committee
decided to instruct the solicitor to take the case before a magistrate for a decision as to whether the
shelter could be regarded as a common lodging-house, and as such approved and registered. This was
done in July, 1899. About the same time, summonses were issued in respect to the " Rowton-house,"
in Bond-street, Vauxhall, and of the "Victoria-home," 177, Whitechapel-road. In each case, however,
the summons was dismissed, that of "The Harbour" and the " Victoria Home" on the ground that
these were charitable institutions and that the facts were not distinguishable from those in the ca: o of
Booth v. Ferrett, in which it was held that a common lodging-house must be kept for purposes of
gain. In the case of Rowton House the magistrate found that the house was not, as a fact, a common
lodging-house.
The Public Health Committee then instructed the solicitor to appeal against the decision in the
case of the " Victoria-house" and " The Harbour," and cases were stated by the magistrates.
The appeal in the case of Logsdon v. Booth respecting " The Harbour," Stanhope-street, was
heard on the 19th November, 1899, and judgment was given in favour of the Council by the Lord Chief
Justice on the 21st December, 1899.
In the case of Logsdon v. Trotter, respecting the "Victoria Home," 177, Whitechapel-road,
judgment on appeal before Mr. Justice Channell and Mr. Justice Bucknill was given in favour of the
Council on the 2nd February, 1900.
The text of the judgment in each of these cases was as follows—
The Salvation Army premises at " The Harbour," Stanhope-street, Strand.
Logsdon v. Booth.
The Lord Chief Justice—This was a case heard before my learned brethren Mr. Justice Bigham
Mr. Justice Darling and myself and I have now to deliver the Judgment of the Court.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the hearing of an
information laid by the Appellant against the Respondent charging the latter with keening contrary to
the Common Lodging Houses Act of 1853 a common lodging-house known as " The Harbour " Stanhopestreet
St. Clement Danes without the name of the Respondent being entered as the keeper thereof in the
register kept under the Common Lodging Houses Act 1851. The learned Magistrate dismissed the
charge on the authority of a decision of a Divisional Court in the case of Booth Appellant v. Ferrett
Respondent 25 Queen's Bench Division page 87 heard in 1890 in which the present Respondent was the
Appellant.
The questions which arise for our determination are as follows—(1) Is the case of Booth v. Ferrett
in principle distinguishable from this case ? (2) If not was that case rightly decided? and (3) If not
rightly decided ought we now to review it P
The material facts are to be found in paragraphs 12 3 4 5 and 7 of the case and to these I will
briefly refer. Paragraph 1 states that "The Harbour" the house in question is kept by William Booth
the Respondent as one of the shelters established by the Salvation Army as part of their social work in
connection with what is called the " Darkest England Scheme." It ia conducted upon the basis of
orders and regulations to which I will in a moment refer. Various prices were charged—low prices
for the night's lodging varying from a very low figure. The case states that the persons who were
admitted were charged either 4d. a night or 2s. a week for a bed and the use in rommin with
other occupants of certain rooms. The officials in charge of the shelter had a certain discretion to admit
persons for a less payment or with no payment and such persons when admitted would in like manner have
the use of a bed and the use of the rooms. The case then proceeds to show that on the 16th May there were
157 beds or bunks that on the ground floor there was an open dormitory not divided into cubicles that
on the five upper floors were open dormitories not divided into cubicles containing in all 137 beds and
one bunk for two occupants. The bunks were placed one above another in the same manner as berths
are placed in the cabin of a ship. On the ground floor there was a sitting or meeting room and a kitchen
and any occupant when admitted was entitled to cook food at the fire and to have the use of it in
common with the other persons admitted. Paragraph 4 states that only men were admitted as the
occupants and men who were drunk or disorderly were not admitted or if admitted they were turned
out. Paragraph 5 states that the occupants were of the same class of men as the men who generally
sleep in registered common lodging-houses save that some of the occupants received at "The Harbour"
were so dirty that they would not be usually received in a common lodging-house. Paragraph 7 states
that the house was kept for charitable or religious objects the keeping of the house being part of the
social work of the Salvation Army and the receipts of the shelter were carried to the funds of the
Darkest England Scheme Trust by the officials of the Army. Then there is a paragraph to which I
need not refer at length paragraph 8 as to whether or not a profit was or might be made in fact by the
keeping of some of these shelters or harbours.
I do not think I need read paragraph 9 but it is to be taken further that although according to the
principles laid down by the orders and regulations the place was to be conducted on a business basis it
was not for the object of personal gain to the Respondent and those acting for him and under his
instructions.
It is necessary to refer to pages 179 180 187 and 188 of the regulations. At page 179 it is stated the
charges made are within the reach of the poorest. (I am not reading each word and every word of each
of these clauses I am referring to the points to which I desire to call attention.) The shelters afford
this accommodation not as a work of charity only but on a business basis so that the inmates are not
demoralised by charity knowing that they pay for what they have and have only what they pay for.
In the shelters the very outcasts of society are brought for a season at least into conditions of health
and cleanliness. Next there are certain religious exercises and meetings held at which attendance is not
compulsory. Then at page 180 it is provided that the shelters are not to be allowed to become the permanent
homes of men who are able to pay more for'the accommodation than the shelter provided. Again the
shelter must not be allowed to assist idle men in their efforts to live a lazy life. Next the shelter must
not be permitted to become in any way a channel or means for the dissemination of disease. Then there
are certain provisions as to bringing influence to bear on the inmates and as to endeavouring to find
employment for them and a number cf provisions very carefully framed apparently if rigorously carried
out directed to the preservation and promotion of health.
The harbour so described and so conducted in no material particular differs from the house the
subject of the enquiry in Booth v. Ferrett. We therefore think that the present case is not in principle
different from that case.
The next inquiry is was that case rightly decided? The learned judges in Booth v. Ferrett came to
the conclusion (but with hesitation) that a similar house and similarly conducted to the present was not
a common lodging-house on two grounds. First that it was not carried on as a business for the sake of
profit but as a humane or charitable enterprise and second that it was not open to all comers as it was
stated a common lodging-house was.