View report page

56
ADMINISTRATIVE WORK.
family stayed for more than one night. The introduction, of the spray method of disinfection has
rendered the shelter less necessary than it was when all disinfection was done with sulphur fumes.
Disinfection.—Messrs. Armfield & Sons are still doing the disinfection and cleansing of bedding
and other articles. There were a few complaints during the autumn of articles not returned.
The reason assigned was great pressure of work, and satisfactory settlement was made in each case.

The actual weight of goods removed was a little over 42 tons, compared with 38½ tons in 1900.
In 1898 44 tons were dealt with.
A case of small-pox occurred among Messrs. Armfield's employes in November, but it has not
been demonstrated that the infection was due to his handling infected goods. The need of protecting
the workers by vaccination was strongly pressed on the Firm when small-pox threatened to
prevail. The question of the Council undertaking this work has yet to be settled. To disinfect
and cleanse goods as now done would be found more expensive if done by the Council than by a
contractor. It might prove advantageous for the Council themselves to disinfect and to contract
for the subsequent cleansing.
Disinfection of Rooms.—The use of sulphur has been gradually given up during the year,
and spraying with formaldehyde solution substituted. Apart from the increased efficiency of the
latter process, it has the advantages of being, on the whole, cheaper, and of not keeping the occupants
out of their houses. The expenditure for disinfectants of all kinds amounted to £58, or £18 less
than in 1900.
Houses Let in Lodgings.—The enforcement of the Bye-laws under Section 94 was almost
entirely in abeyance during the year. No houses were added to the register, but those houses
already registered were inspected, and the annual whitewashing enforced as far as was possible.
On May 13th of last year the case of Weatheritt v. Cant/ay was decided in the King's Bench.
The question at issue was whether a block of artizans' dwellings came within the purview of Section
94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as a house let in lodgings or occupied by members of
more than one family. The Court held that a building which was divided into separate tenements
and let as artizans' dwellings was not a "house" within the meaning of the Section (see 65 J. P.,
629). In other words, where a house is divided up into tenements, each with its own front door,
such house cannot be registered as a house let in lodgings. If lodgers be taken in by the occupiers
of the tenements then each tenement can be registered.
Removal of Offensive Refuse.—The Bye-law to amend that framed by the London
County Council under Section 16 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, in 1893, came into
operation in October last. The chief result of the amendment is to require peat-moss manure to
be carried through the streets in "a suitable carriage'or vessel properly constructed, and furnished
with a sufficient covering so as to prevent the escape of any matter or liquid therefrom, and so as to
prevent any nuisance arising therefrom."
Proceedings were necessary during the summer for transporting offensive refuse through the
streets during the proscribed hours. Particulars of the cases taken into Court will be found
under "Legal Proceedings" (page 72).
Dust Wharves.—Since the closure of Wharf No. 20, North Wharf Road, there have been no
complaints of nuisance from any of the Wharves. The case against the occupier of Wharf No. 20,
not completed at the date of last Report, was completed during the year, and fines and costs
amounting to £10 2s. were imposed.
The old Paddington Act has been repealed since the last Report was written, and accumulations
on the Wharves can now only be dealt with under the Bye-laws of the London County Council made
under the provisions of Section 16 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.