View report page

151
was quoted in support of the defence. For the prosecution it
was proved that there was a street-door at the entrance to the
house common to each tenant ; that each lodger had the common
use of the passage and staircase, the sanitary conveniences (of
which there were two), the dustbin, and the washhouse.
The learned Magistrate (Mr. Bros) gave judgment against the
defendant, ruling that the house was one liable to registration.
As the non-compliance with the notice served by us was by
reason of a misinterpretation of the law, and not of contumacy,
the Solicitor to the Borough Council asked for only a nominal
penalty. The defendant was therefore fined one shilling and
£2 2s. costs.
2. Overcrowding of Registered Houses (Bye-law 4).—A number
of summonses were issued under this heading to which reference
is made under" Overcrowding" (p. 156). Fourteen prosecutions
have taken place, all of which resulted in convictions. Total
penalties and costs £27 8s. Od. It should be added that in
addition to these 14 prosecutions for overcrowding, under Bye-law
4, there were 89 additional cases of overcrowding under this
Bye-law which were abated under notice without prosecution.
The Council {Green) v. Gekringer.—This was a matter in
which 9 summonses had been taken out against defendant for
causing or allowing overcrowding to exist at 9 houses of which he
was the landlord, and which were upon the Register of Houses
Let in Lodgings. The case came before the Worship Street
Police Court on April 24th, 1902, when the defendant's solicitor
took the objection that these houses should not be upon the
Register, relying on Weatheritt v. Cantlay. The Magistrate
(Mr. Haden Corser), however, hold that the case of Weatheritt
v. Cantlay did not apply to houses of this description.
3. Failure to Cleanse Registered Houses (Bye-law 15). Eleven
prosecutions have taken place under this Bye-law, and in each
case have resulted in convictions. Total penalties and costs,
£22 13s. Od.