View report page

I
16
Mr. E. Lewis Thomas (instructed by me) appeared for the plaintiff's, and Mr.
Woodfin (instructed by Mr. Lambert) for the defendant.
Mr. Thomas said the summons was for £209, the expenses of executing
drainage works at Norfolk Buildings, Shoreditch, on the owner failing to comply
with notices under sec. 85 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. The
premises consisted of 48 tenements of so-called Model Artisans' Dwellings, and on
the Medical Officer of Health causing them to be examined for a certificate for
exemption from inhabited house duty, the whole system of drainage was found to
be in a most defective and dangerous state, many closets having no water supply,
the ground under some of the bedrooms being saturated with sewage floodings from
stoppages in the drains, and the yards being unpaved, undrained and covered with
refuse. During 1890-1 a number of cases of typhoid fever, diphtheria, and other
infectious diseases had occurred in the premises. Notices were served in November,
1891, on Mr. Pilbrow, the collector of the rents (as the owner could not be found),
to reconstruct and amend the main drain between the two blocks, and all the branch
drains of the tenements, with other necessary works. Conferences took place, but
nothing was done, and in February, 1892, the Vestry employed a builder to execute
the work, the expenses of which were now sought to be recovered. Since the work
had been done the drains had been stopped several times, but this was found to be
due to the insertion of brick and coke rubbish, and a tightly bound mass of hay in
the drain through the ventilating pipe on ihe roof, in such a way as to point to a
wilful stoppage by some persons. The cover of an inspection chamber had also been
broken by force.
Dr. Allan, the Medical Officer of Health, Inspectors Alexander and Stiles, and
Mr. Barr, proved the counsel's statement. I also proved certain photographs
(produced) which were taken of the drains when opened up, and the necessary
resolutions of the Vestry, and showed the difficulty experienced in finding that the
collector of the rents was Mr. Pilbrow. This man was identical with Newby & Co.,
of Chancery Laue, who appeared to act for a syndicate of owners of this class of
property in different parts of London. The owner was said to be a Mr. Smith, in
Spain, but Pilbrow had compromised an action against him by the ground landlord
for rent by paying half the rent due, and to this extent he appeared to have a
charge on the property. Pilbrow's two sons were set to collect the rents at the
time of the service of the notices. Mr. Tidman, sanitary engineer, and Mr. Jarvis,
a builder of large experience, were called as experts, and they proved testing the
drains as amended, and the satisfactory execution of the work, which they valued
at £230, no charge having been made for supervision. Messrs. Walesby and
rhomerson, builders, produced plans of the old and new drainage schemes, and
considered the work very well done. Three tenants of the premises proved payment
of rent to Pilbrow and his sons.
Mr. Woodfin took the objections that Pilbrow was not the collector of the