View report page

10
Renaming
and
Renumbering
Streets.
Regent's
Canal
Boundary
Walls.
Sanitary.
Jobbing
Sewers
Contract
Reconstruction
Artizans
and
Laborer's
Dwellings
Aft.
Orders of the Metropolitan Board of Works have been
received for—
Wentworth-road,to be re-named Brantridge-st.
Blenheim terrace,}
Raymond-road,},, ,, Morgan-st.
Trinity-terrace,}
Morgan-st.,}
Chapel-terrace,} ,, ,, Upper Montague-st.
Upper Montague-st.}
Cantrill-road,}
Edinburgh-road,}
Harford-st.,},, re-numbered.
Ely-terrace,}
Garden-st.,}
The Regent's Canal Company have sought to cast upon the
Vestry the duty of putting and maintaining the boundary walls
and the parapet walls of the bridges into such a condition as to
prevent accidents by persons falling over. The Vestry deny all
liability to do this, and maintain that that duty belongs to the
company. The Canal Company have been held by the Queen's
Bench Division liable for damages for an accident which arose
through a person falling over the boundary wall in Canal-road,
owing to its insufficient height.
Mr. Finch's tender to perform the jobbing sewers' work was
accepted.
The sewer in Lady Lake's-grove has been demolished, and a
new brick sewer put in. A very serious defect has been
discovered in the sewer in Commercial-road, which the Vestry
fear will cost a very considerable sum to remedy, but as the
matter has not been fully considered at present, the Vestry will
not make further remark.
The Vestry have had under their notice, under the Artizans
and Labourers' Dwellings' Act, a great number of houses, and
have insisted on the works necessary to render them fit for
human habitation being fully carried out.
In the last report reference is made to the fact that the owner
of Norfolk House had appealed against the order of the Vestry
under the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings' Act.
The case came before the Quarter Sessions, in April, 1886,
and the owner then, with the sanction of the Court, undertook
to carry out works to the satisfaction of the Vestry's surveyor,
and the appeal was adjourned to the next Sessions in July.
In July nothing hardly had been done, and the Court ordered
the appellant to pay the costs of the day, and the case was
adjourned till September.
On attending the Court in September, the Assistant-Judge
had gone for his vacation, and the sitting Judge declined to
hear the case, and it was adjourned till the October sittings. At
the October sittings the Assistant-Judge was still absent, and
Norfolk
House.