View report page

31
Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health—1894.
APPENDIX A.
Booth v. Ferrett *
This case raised the question whether a Salvation Army " refuge " is a common
lodging-house within the Common Lodging-houses Act of 1851, requiring to be
registered and approved by the inspector appointed by the local authority. Mr. Booth
had opened a refuge at '272, Whitechapel Eoad, which had not been inspected or
registered under the Act, and an information was laid against him under the Act, on
the ground that it was a common lodging-house. The magistrate held that it was so,
and convicted; but stated a case to raise the question, on which Mr. Booth appealed.
It was proved and not contested that Mr. Booth in and from October, 1889, opened
and kept open the house for the reception of male lodgers to sleep in one common
room for one or more nights, and to be supplied with food in it and another common
room at an inclusive charge of 4d. per night for bed, supper, and breakfast. There
was accomodation for 100 men, and as many as 69 were on one night found sleeping
in the room. Notice to register the house under the Act was given by the Commissioners
of Police, and in spite of such notice and after the expiration of a month
Mr. Booth continued to receive male lodgers in the house (in the manner already
stated), the house not having been registered or approved. It was not disputed by
him that if the house was a common lodging-house within the Act the conviction was
right. The lodgers so sleeping in separate beds on the floor in one common room
were strangers to each other, and were of the class of poor persons who frequent the
registered common lodging-houses. A notice was posted that 4d. a night was charged
for supper, bed, and breakfast, and frequently a notice that the house was full. The
sum of 4d. was paid for such accomodation by such as had 4d. to pay, or a smaller
sum if they had less, while free tickets were given to persons with no means at the
discretion of the person in charge, such free tickets being paid for by charitable friends
of the institution. The person in charge also exercised his discretion in refusing to
admit persons who were, in his opinion, able to pay more than 4d. for their night's
accomodation. The rooms were opened for lodgers at 5 o'clock each evening. Supper
was given at 7 and a Salvation meeting held at 8. Up to 11 o'clock the lodgers were
admitted and given supper. It was contended on the part of Mr. Booth that this was
not a common lodging-house within the Act, on the grounds that the house was kept
partly for charity and not as a common inn, which is common to the sexes ; and that
the owner elected to refuse whom he chose, and that it was partly maintained by
charitable contributions and not for the purpose of profit or gain ; and the question
whether the facts constituted a common lodging-house within the Act was a question
of law. The magistrate found that this was a lodging-house established and maintained
not for any pecuniary pupose of gain, but for the accomodation of the poorest
class of persons only, partly with a charitable and partly with a religious object; and
he found that it was a common lodging-house as the appellant received therein such
poor persons for short periods upon the terms of inhabiting one common room,
although strangers to each other; and he found that it was a common lodging-house
within the Act upon the facts proved before him as above set forth, and having regard
to the provisions of the Act and the Public Health Acts, and to the need of sanitary
protection of the successive relays of such poor persons so lodged by the appellant
and, through them, of the public at large, and he therefore convicted the appellant,
but submitted to the Court whether he was right in holding that the house was a
a common lodging-house.
*Beprinted from Times Law Reports, Vol. 6, p. 337. (By permission of Editor.)