View report page

145
house, did not, in the first week of April, cause every part of
the premises to be cleansed, contrary to the bye-laws in such case
made and provided. In this case the magistrate dismissed the
summons.
In the second case, Nokes and Nokes v. the Mayor, Aldermen and
Councillors of Islington, the appellants were the landlords within
the meaning of the bye-laws, the information preferred was similar
to that in the first case, and the magistrate sitting at the
Clerkenwell Police Court convicted the appellants and fined them
10s. and costs. The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment
in both cases, stated that in his opinion the bye-laws were bad
because they did not provide that the persons who were made
responsible for seeing that the things were done should receive the
necessary notice. In his opinion, the bye-laws in both cases'
required remodelling, with the point of view not of removing the
liability of the landlord, but of giving him notice before subjecting
him to penalties.
Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Kennedy agreed that the
bye-laws could not be supported for the reasons given by the Lord
Chief Justice.
The appeal in the first case was dismissed with costs. The
appeal in the second case was allowed with costs.
The bye-laws, which were the subject of the above decisions,
were made by the Stepney and Islington Borough Councils
respectively, under Section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, and were substantially the same as those in operation in
Finsbury. The section provides that every sanitary authority
shall make and enforce such bye-laws as are therein specified as to
houses let in lodgings. Section 114 of the Act provides that all
bye-laws made by any sanitary authority under the Act shall be
made subject and according to the provisions with respect to
bye-laws contained in sections 182 to 186 of the Public Health
Act, 1875, and under section 184 of that Act the bye-laws require
the approval of the Local Government Board.