View report page

32
Parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark.
Mr. Willis, Q.C., (with Mr. Colam), appeared for the appellant, Mr. Booth, to
contend that the magistrate was wrong, and said the inmates were admitted at the
discretion of the manager, some without payment of the usual charge or at a less
rate. The institution was not carried on for any profit, but its object was partly
charitable and partly religious, the object being to meet special emergencies and
pressing distress; and while there was no objection to the entrance of the police for
police purposes, it would be seriously fettered if the regulations of common lodginghouses
were to be applied and enforced to such institutions as this.
Mr. R. S. Wright, instructed by the Solicitor to the Treasury, argued in support
of the conviction, contending that this was a case of a common lodging-house. It
was said to be a question of fact; and it was found by the magistrate that this was
a common lodging-house. The phrase appeared to distinguish between a lodginghouse
where all were admitted and private lodging-house where all were admitted
and private lodging-house Upon sanitary grounds it did not matter whether the
object was profitable or charitable.
The Court, however, came to the conclusion that the conviction was wrong.
Lord Coleridge, in giving judment, said, as the Act contained no definition of
"common lodging-houses,'' it was necessary to see what are "common lodginghouses."
It is clear that it is not all lodging-houses, but only "common lodginghouses."
It should seem, looking at the scope and intention of the Acts, that such
an institution as this—a charitable institution, not carried on for purpose of profit
or gain, not open to all comers, but only on such terms and conditions as the
managers may direct—is not within these Acts of Parliament, which contain
extremely stringent regulations, highly proper for the purposes of the institutions,
which appear to be intended where all persons are received for purposes of gain.
Such lodging-houses being kept for the purpose of profit, it is reasonable to assume
that the keepers, so that they do not violate any law, will endeavour to make as
much money as possible, and that, therefore, injury or danger to the public may
result from the houses being overcrowded or kept without regard to sanitary conditions
; and therefore Parliament established certain regulations, highly proper for
such houses, which appear to have been intended by the Act. He could not therefore
say that this institution came within the Act or within the notion any one would
entertain of a 'common lodging-house." According to common understanding, a
lodging-house open to all comers, and kept for the purpose of profit, would seem to
be the kind of lodging-house intended. A magistrate of intelligence had already
held, in the case of a female lodging-house, that it did not come within the Act, and
there had been no attempt to reverse that decision. It was for those who desired to
bring such institutions as these within the Act to show that they came within it.
But such an institution as this certainly did not come within his idea of a " common
lodging-house." On the whole, therefore, he came to the conclusion that the Act
was not intended to apply to such institutions as this, and, therefore, that the conviction
was wrong and must be set aside.
Mr. Justice Matthew was of the same opinion.
Appeal allowed, with costs.
Colclough v. Edwards.*
This case raised, on appeal from a decision of one of the metropolitan police
magistrates, a question of some interest as to the refuges or shelters of the Salvation
Army. The appellant, one of the officers of the Army, was summoned by the sanitary
inspector of the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, for that on the 25th and
26th of May last he unlawfully let for hire a part of a house, No. 115a, Blackfriars
*Reprinted from Times Law Reports, Vol. 10, p. 118. (By permission of Editor.)