View report page

54
In the Court of Queen's Bench on April 14th, before Mr. Justice
Charles and Mr. Justice Collins, the Queen v. Mead, one of the
Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the point at issue was whether it was
sufficient to leave the summonses under the Public Health (London)
Act at the house or premises addressed to "the owner."
Mr, Mead, the Magistrate dismissed the summons (15 Swaton
Road, Bromley) on the ground that it had not been properly served
on the owner of the premises; he contended that notices and summonses
ought to be served on the owner by name at the last known
address, and that a summons was not included as a document under
section 128.
A rule nisi for a mandamus was obtained.
The Judges decided that the summons was properly issued and
served, and that the Magistrate ought to have proceeded upon it.
In serving notices and summonses the utmost diligence is used by
the Inspectors, in order to find out owners' names and addresses, i.e.,
the persons who receive the rent, whether as agents or otherwise.
Section 116 (3) enacts, that the occupier of any premises is liable
to a fine of £5 if he wilfully refuses to disclose the name of the
owner; but the difficulty of finding out who is the owner, sometimes,
is very great, as the tenants are really not able to furnish the necessary
information. I have known a case where the rents of a number
of houses were collected by a poor woman living in an adjoining
terrace, and although she paid over the collected money to
a man, she did not even know his name and address, inasmuch as
any receipt given by him was signed by his initials, and letters forwarded
to her were signed in his Christian name only.
In several instances the Rate Book has had to be consulted, in
which the names of the occupier and the person paying the rates are
given. As a rule the person collecting the rent pays the rates, but we