View report page

60
Mr. Warrington having agreed to such a declaration, he was not
called upou to reply.
Lord Justice Lindley, in delivering judgment, said that, looking at
the matter from the point of view of the public, the case was of the
simplest possible description. The defendant, Sir H. M. Brownrigg,
was the owner of a vacant piece of land. Was it or was it not a common
law duty of the owner of a vacant piece of land to prevent that land
from being a public nuisance? His Lordship thought that it was, and
referred to Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown, p. 6.29, as supporting that view.
It was an indictable offence. It was of no use for the defendant to say
that he had not put the refuse complained of on the land His duty
was to prevent it from becoming a public nuisance. His Lordship then
referred to decided cases and continued : He could not entertain the
slightest doubt that the common law duty of the defendant was to
prevent the land from being used in the way it was. If that was so,
why was not the Attorney-General, at the relation of the vestries as
plaintiffs, entitled to an injunction? It seemed to his Lordship to be
almost a matter of course that the Attorney-General should, on behalf of
the public, have an injunction granted. The mere fact that the injunction
would put the defendant to expense in the removal of the refuse and
rubbish was no excuse. So much, therefore, for the common law aspect
of the case, which was what the Court had first to regard. As to the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, it gave the Court authority to grant
an injunction. Section 138, which did not appear to have been called
to the attention of Mr. Justice Kekewich, provided that all powers,
rights, and remedies given by that Act should be in addition to and not
in derogation of any other powers, rights, and remedies conferred by any
Act of Parliament, law, or custom. His Lordship then dealt with the
alleged reasons for not interfering with the decision of the learned Judge
in the Court below, and came to the conclusion that the declaration
ought to be as above set forth.
Lords Justices A. L. Smith and Rigby delivered judgment to the same
effect.
Inspector Kirk.
Twenty-two summonses have been taken out by order of the
Public Health Committee comprising four under the Sale of
Food and Drugs Acts; one under the Public Health Act, 1891;
one under the Metropolis Local Management Act; and
resulted as follows:—
Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, £4 was recovered
in fines and £3 0s. 6d. in costs.
Under section 5 of the Pubic Health (London) Act, 1891,
four summonses were taken out which resulted in a magistrate's
order to abate the nuisances on each summons and to
pay 10/6 in each case. Upon non-compliance of the above
orders four additional summonses were taken out, but before
the hearing the magistrate's orders were complied with, the
defendant paying, at the demand of the Vestry's Solicitor,
one guinea and cost of summons, 8s.
Nine summonses under the Bye-laws for houses let in
lodgings were heard at the Police Court and resulted in the
recovery of £3 lis. fines, and 18s. costs.