View report page

148
Baggallay) would give under this same Bye-law. In the event
he found for the Council in each of 5 cases, which were exactly
similar to the case of Mr. Maley, imposing penalties or costs in
each case. This judgment is in accord with the usual practice,
and Mr. Baggallay held that the Bye-law was valid and good
law, even though Mr. Mead's objections had been fully stated
before him by Mr. Ricketts. It thus appears that the judgment
of the learned Magistrate, Mr. Mead, is somewhat exceptional,
and the Solicitor and myself decided, on a consideration of all
the circumstances of the case, that we should not put the Council
to the expense of an appeal in this instance. I may add that the
dismissed cases were prosecuted on my advice, not because of
any personal opinions whatever, but because I had no option
under the law except to advise prosecution. During the last
five years we have obtained 60 convictions under this Bye-law,
and these four dismissals are the first which have occurred. I
reported the facts to the Local Government Board.
On June 5th, three other precisely similar cases under Byelaw
15 were heard by Mr. d'Eyncourt at the Clerkenwell Police
Court, who also convicted in each ease, inflicting penalties and
costs. In this case, also, Mr. Ricketts stated to the learned
Magistrate the particulars of Mr. Mead's judgment in the case
of the Council against Maley. Hence all the facts of the case
were before the Court, and judgment was again given in support
of the Council's Bye-laws.
(2.) Overcrowding of Registered houses (Bye-law 4). Ninetyeight
cases of overcrowding in registered houses came to our
knowledge during the year. Seven prosecutions have taken
place, one was withdrawn and the remaining six resulted in
convictions. Total penalties and costs £13 12s. 0d. It should
be added that in addition to these 14 prosecutions for overcrowding,
under Bye-law 4, there were other cases of overcrowding
under this Bye-law which were abated under notice without
prosecution.