Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Annual report of the Medical Officer of Health for the year ending December 31st, 1902
This page requires JavaScript
49
Combined Drainage.
Fifty systems of combined drains, for portions of which the
Council were liable, owing to their being "sewers" within the
meaning of the Metropolis Management Act, were reconstructed
during the year at a cost of £879 10s., the work being
carried out by a contractor at a schedule of prices.
£64 was also paid to owners in respect of work executed by
them at 6 houses in compliance with the notices of the Council
in connection with house drains which were sewers within the
meaning of the Act.
An action was brought in the King's Bench Division by
Messrs. Silles against the Council to recover the sum of £177,
being moneys expended by them in repairing the drains of
certain houses in Hazlebury Road and Wandsworth Bridge
Road in pursuance of notices served under the Metropolis
Local Management Act, Section 85. Each of the houses in
question was drained by a separate drain, but the rain water
from the roof of an adjoining house was discharged, together
with the rain water from the house itself, by means of a
common stack pipe over a gulley in the yard connected with
the drain.
Mr. Justice Wright, who heard the case, after hearing the
evidence, held that as regards the question of drain or sewer
he was bound by the decision of Mr. Justice Bruce in the case
of Holland v. Lazarus that the pipes in question constituted a
"sewer," though at the same time he expressed an opinion
that there was much to be said with reference to the latter case
in a superior court.
At some of the houses the work had been done by the owner,
on receipt of an intimation from the Sanitary Inspector served
in pursuance of Section 3 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, bringing under his notice the existence of a nuisance on
the premises, and in these cases Mr. Justice Wright held that
the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the amount expended
from the Borough Council; but as regards the notices served
under Section 85 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, he
held that there was sufficient compulsion to justify the plaintiffs
doing the work, and gave judgment in respect of the claims