View report page

144
being the persons who have power with regard to any house whether built
before or after the commencement of the Act to say what is sufficient water
closet accommodation for a given number of people, and who have to give a
statutory notice calling upon the landlord or owner to provide that the terms
of the section shall be carried out, and that if not he shall be liable to a
penalty of £5, it contemplates that the Local Authority shall give notice to
the landlord or owner before proceedings are taken. I think, therefore, this
objection to a bye-law which imposes a penalty for a breach of it, especially
when you remember it is intended to be put in force against people who are
not in fact owners but put in the position of owners, is a good one, and that
there should be the same kind of notice given to them before proceedings
are taken as is contemplated by Section 37. I think, therefore, this bye-law
which provides that proceedings may be taken and that the landlord shall
provide, and does not make provision for a notice to be given before
proceedings are taken, is not a reasonable bye-law."
As a result of this judgment the London County Council added
to Bye-law 26 of the Bye-laws under Section 39, the following
clause:—
Provided that the landlord or owner of any lodging-house
shall not be deemed to have offended against the last-mentioned
requirement of this bye-law until the sanitary authority shall
have caused notice to be served on such landlord or owner
requiring him forthwith or within such reasonable time as may
be specified in the notice to provide and maintain in connection
with such house, watercloset, earthcloset, or privy accommodation
in the proportion as aforesaid, and he shall have failed to
comply with the notice.
The second judgment concerned two cases, and was given on
5th February, 1904, by the High Court (King's Bench Division),
to the effect that certain bye-laws as to cleansing houses let in
lodgings were invalid, as they did not provide for notice to be
given before action was taken.
In the first case, Stiles v. Galinski, the appellant was a sanitary
inspector of the Stepney Borough Council, and the respondent a
landlord within the meaning of the bye-laws in force in Stepney as
to houses let in lodgings. At the Thames Police Court, on
23rd June, 1903, an information was preferred by the appellant
against the respondent, that he, being the landlord of a lodging-