View report page

12
The defendant refused to carry out the suggestions of the Officers, and legal
proceedings were therefore taken against him. The Magistrate, after hearing
witnesses on the 5th December, adjourned the summonses for fourteen days. At the
resumed hearing he said in effect that, during the adjournment, he had read the
Bye-Laws carefully, and had come to the conclusion that the proceedings were bad,
as the Bye-Laws gave no power to the Local Authority to compel any owner to
place an interceptor or inspection-chamber under the footway, thereby increasing the
owner's liability. He pointed out that any accident to a person, caused by the
chamber under the footway, would increase the owner's liability. He then dismissed
the summonses, and awarded the defendant five guineas' costs.
This matter is of great importance apart from the result in this particular case.
It means in this Borough, where probably at least 95 per cent, of the premises
abut close on to the public footways, and have no intervening forecourts or areas in
which to place these intercepting chambers, that the requirements of the Bye-Laws
cannot be enforced, and do not, in fact, legally apply if an owner of existing
premises cannot be made to use the footway for this purpose, although the Local
Authority has given its consent.
It is obviously a most unsatisfactory arrangement, and quite contrary to all
ideas of good sanitation that this trap should be permitted to remain under a parlour
floor, and I venture to suggest that, as these Bye-Laws are made by the London
County Council, the facts should be reported to them.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
John Foot.
Local Governmerit
Board.
Repayment of
half of
Inspector's
salaries.
Adverting to correspondence with the L.G.B., the following
memorandum was prepared for the information of your Chairman at
the time, and which I reproduce here for the information of the
members of the Council generally.
Nothing that has occurred since in connection with this matter
makes any alteration necessary, except to add that the " Board's
Order " is antiquated and requires revising, so as to make it include
all reasonable and practical sanitary work and supervision. The mere
fact that a narrow and strict interpretation of this Order excludes the
amendment of defective drains from its operation, does not get rid of
the further fact that work of this character is sanitary work of the
highest possible importance, and should be recognised as such.