View report page

189
The builder employed by Messrs. Chambers elected to have an
appeal before the London County Council, and he wrote requesting
such an appeal on April 18th, 1904; therefore I served the defendant
with a Statutory Notice upon which to make his appeal to the
County Council. Printed in red upon the Statutory Notice was a
note reminding him of his opportunity for appeal, which is to be
made within seven days after the receipt of the Statutory Notice
from us (Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, Section 211.) We
gave him, as a matter of fact, three weeks' grace in which time to
make his appeal, but he did not make it, although he had
particularly requested that that course should be taken. As, therefore,
no action whatever was taken, and the partition was not amended,
it was necessary for me to apply for a Summons to be served upon
Messrs. Chambers & Son, which was done on June 9th, 1904.
In view of these facts I deemed that in this case of Peverett v.
Chambers, the point to press for in the Police Court where the
Summons was taken out was a penalty for non-compliance with the
Notice, irrespective of suitability of structure or otherwise. The
defendant had already asked the opinion of the Sanitary Authority
with regard to the suitability or otherwise of the partition, and had
been informed that it was unsuitable, and what it would be
necessary to do to make it suitable. Not accepting our opinion, he
had asked for an appeal to the County Council, but when an
opportunity offered for making his appeal he declined to do so. He
had, therefore, I submit, placed himself outside the question of
suitability of structure, as he had disregarded the requirements of
the law on that point, and had thereby definitely waived his right
on the question of suitability of the partition (see Vestry of St. John,
Hackney v. Hutton, 61, J.P., 54; and Clerkenwell Vestry v. Feary,
54, J.P., 678.)
When the case came before the Police Court, the learned
magistrate, Mr. Cluer, took the view that the suitability of the
partition was the point at issue, and he adjourned the case with the
view of visiting the premises himself to form an opinion on that
point. At the adjourned hearing of the case the learned magistrate,
when he had viewed the partition, formed the opinion that it was
suitable. He, therefore, dismissed the summons with £2 2s. costs
against the Council.