View report page

33
Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health—1894.
Road, in which one Edwin Henderson had been suffering from a dangerous infectious
disease, without having it disinfected to the satisfaction of a medical practitioner
duly qualified, contrary to the provision in the Public Health Act for London, 1891,
54 and 55 Vict., cap. 76, sec. 63. The magistrate convicted and inflicted a fine of
£20, but stated a case for the opinion of the Court. It was proved that the premises
were in the occupation of William Booth—commonly called General Booth—and
were used by him in connection with the social scheme of the Salvation Army for the
purpose of sheltering at night persons of the homeless and poorest class. The part
of the premises in question, known as "The Penny Shelter" consisting of a large
hall or room having six ventilators. The appellant is the person placed in charge of
the shelter by Mr. Booth, and the charge for admission is a penny. Persons are
admitted to the shelter at and after 5 p.m. each evening, and are permitted to remain
there till half-past 7 next morning, and that after 6 p.m. persons so admitted are at
liberty to lie down upon the forms or seats therein that may happen to be unoccupied,
but no particular part of the shelter is appropriated or alloted to any of those so
admitted, and the forms or seats are not numbered or railed off. On the evening of
the 24th of May last, between 10 and 11 o'clock, one Henderson was admitted to the
shelter on payment of a penny, and remained there until the morning of the 25th of
May, when he went to the parish infirmary, and on the same morning the appellant
was informed that Henderson was suffering from small-pox. Regulations have been
made on behalf of Mr. Booth for the daily cleansing and disinfecting of the shelter,
and pursuant thereto, immediately the men have vacated it each morning, all
windows and doors were closed and the shelter fumigated with sulphur, and all the
drains cleansed and disinfected; the floor scrubbed and washed with soap and soda,
and afterwards disinfectant was sprinkled on the floor. The regulations were, in the
opinion of the magistrate, sufficient for ordinary purposes of cleanliness, bat not for
disinfection in connection with dangerous infectious diseases. When Henderson was
taken ill special instructions were given to the foreman-cleaner of the shelter by the
appellant, and in consequence more sulphur was burnt and for an hour longer than
usual, and the disinfectant used was much stronger and more was used, and on
Tuesday, the 26th, these additional and extra precautions were repeated. On the
25th and 26th, however, the premises were opened and persons admitted on the
usual terms. On the 27th a registered medical practitioner acting on behalf of Mr.
Booth, visited the premises and signed two certificates testifying that the premises
had on the 25th and 26th of May been disinfected to his satisfaction, but he did not
on either of those days visit the shelter or take any part in the usual daily cleansing
and disinfecting. It was contended for the appellant that there was no letting, and
that the certificates given were sufficient under the act. The Magistrate, however,
thought otherwise and convicted, but stated the case to raise the questions, (a)
whether there was a letting for hire of part of a house, and (b) whether the certificates
were sufficient to satisfy the statute.
Mr. Willis, Q.C. (with Mr. Munroe) appeared for the appellant, and contended
that there was no "letting" of any part of the house. (Mr. Justice Wills—surely
there was not. It was a mere license), Just so, No particular part was allotted
to any man. (Mr. Justice Wills.—It is clearly a case in which the Act ought to apply
but does not. Mr. Justice Wright.—Besides which certificates were given by a
qualified medical practitioner.) That is so, and there is a daily disinfectant process.
The case is not one within the enactment.
Mr., Disturnal, who appeared for the inspector, the respondent, urged that there
was 4&t letting; but the Court was clearly of the opposite opinion and said the case
was hardly arguable.
Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.