View report page

32
of drainage shown on that plan had not been carried out; and that the
actual scheme of drainage carried out for that block of houses was different
from that shown upon the plan. It was suggested that the scheme of drainage
actuully carried out had been sanctioned by the Surveyor to the Vestry,
but that was not proved. It was contended on behalf of the Defendants that
the deposited plans showing the proposed drainage upon which the order
under Section 47 was made formed a part of that order, that the order made
was the order for the carrying out of that scheme, and that scheme not
having been carried out, the order would not cover the operation of drainage
as done, and therefore, there was no order for the operation as done. And
consequently the conduit from which this nuisance arose was not a drain
within the definition under Section 250 of the Act of 1855. And that, therefore,
the Defendants were not liable to repair it.
"On behalf of the Vestry it was urged that the order was good and covered
the work done under the block of houses, of which No. 71, Amherst Park,
was one, even though the scheme of drainage shown on the deposited plan
had been, with the knowledge and consent of the Surveyor, departed from.
"Now, looking at the original order upon which the Vestry relies for the
laying of the drainage for the block of houses, of which No. 71, Amherst
Park is one, by a combined operation, of which this conduit is a part, and
which is said to be a drain within the definition of Section 250. I find it to be
'an order directing the work with reference to which application is
'made to be done according to this plan (plan attached) and the terms
'of this application.' The terms of the application which is headed
'Application for permission to lay a drain and the applicant
'agrees to carry out the said order in accordance with the said applica'tion
and in accordance with the plan delineated hereon.' The order is
then made for the work, that is to say, the drainage to be carried out
according to the plan. But something quite different is done. The order
made, therefore, is no order at all for what was done, and this drainage, as
existing, was not done under the order for the combined operation under
Section 74.
"Therefore the conduit is not a drain within the definition of Section
250, and it is a sewer for the state of which the Vestry is responsible.
Summons dismissed, with seven guineas cost."
Infectious Disease.—Notifications were received during the
year of infectious disease in 1996 houses. Inspections were made of
these and the drains tested to discover any defect. The result of
this testing is given in another part of this report; but where found
defective the drains were repaired or reconstructed; any other
nuisances found were also abated.