View report page

29
With respect to No. 39, Alma Street, the drain of this house crossed the area
in front of No. 37, the adjoining house, to reach the sewer. The portion of the drain
under the area was found to be defective, and the owner of No. 39 was served with
a statutory notice to abate the nuisance arising from the defect. The magistrate held
that he was unable to make an order because there was no authority for the owner
of No. 39 to enter upon the premises at No. 37 Alma Street for the purpose of abating
a nuisance. The summons was, therefore, dismissed without costs. The defective
portion of drain was, however, subsequently rectified.
With respect to the houses in Clift Street, the summonses were taken out by
Inspector Langstone, in consequence of a drain being defective. The magistrate
ordered the necessary work to be carried1 out for the abatement of the nuisance in
three weeks.
The summons in respect to No. 24, Cropley Street, was taken out against the
proprietor of a milk business carried on at the premises for failure to register as a purveyor
of milk in accordance with the requirements of the regulations as to dairies,
cow-sheds, and milk-shops.
The summonses in respect to the houses in Govan Street were taken out by
Inspector Firth, the houses being in a dirty and dilapidated state. When the cases
came before the magistrate the works required were in progress. The summonses
were therefore adjourned and eventually withdrawn, the statutory notices having been
complied with.
The house in Grange Street was in such a state as to be a nuisance. The magistrate,
instead of making an order, allowed the summons to be adjourned for three
weeks for the necessary work to be carried out for the abatement of the nuisance.
This having been done, the summons was withdrawn upon payment of the Council's
costs in respect to the same.
With regard to No. 42, Lee Street, this house was in a very dirty and dilapidated
condition, and in such a state as to be a nuisance. The owner was summoned for
not complying with a statutory notice for the abatement of the same. An order was
made by the magistrate, giving the owner six weeks to> do the necessary work to comply
with the notice. This he failed to do, and was again summonsed for not obeying
the order, and fined £2, with costs. Very little of the work was at the end of the
year carried out, and the case remains under consideration.
The owner of No. 6, Loanda Street, was summoned for a breach of the bye-laws
of the London County Council, made under section 39 (1) of the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891. It was contended by the Council that a new long hopper watercloset
pan had been fixed, and that no notice in writing had been given to the clerk
to the Sanitary Authority as required by bye-law No. 14. The contention of the owner
was that a new pan had not been fixed, but that the old one had been taken out,
cleaned and replaced and that the bye-laws had not therefore been contravened. The
owner's builder bore witness to the correctness of this contention. The evidence of