View report page

98
"In 1895 another Factory and Workshop Act was passed, section 27 (3) enacting that—
' A place underground shall not be used as a bakehouse unless it is so used at the
commencement of this Act'—i.e., January 1st, 1896.
" It was hoped, as already stated, that this sub-section would enable the sanitary
authorities, from time to time, to close insanitary underground bakehouses on vacation of
premises—a hope that was disappointed by magisterial decisions. The point, moreover, came
before the High Court in Schwerzerhof v. Wilkins,* on an appeal from a conviction by a
Metropolitan Magistrate under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. From the statement of the
case, it appeared that the premises in question had been fitted up as an underground bakehouse
in 1879, and had been occupied and used as a baker's premises down to October, 1895,
when the tenant left. The owner then put the premises into repair, and the work was completed
at about Christmas, 1895. The appellant became tenant of the premises in February,
1896, and at once commenced to use the underground bakehouse for the purposes of his business,
and had continued to do so down to October 15th, 1897. It was contended for the
appellant that the premises were ' used as a bakehouse' within the meaning of the Act, at the
time when the Act came into operation. The magistrate, however, held that the place was
not 'used as a bakehouse' on January 1st, 1896, and convicted the appellant, but stated a
case for the opinion of the Court. It was held by the Court (Wright and Darling, J.J.)
that the premises were ' used as a bakehouse ' at the commencement of the Act—but Mr.
Justice Wright was ' far from saying that there might not be cases in which the Court would
take a different view.' The conviction was quashed.
" In the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, sub-section (1) of section 101, re-enacting in
almost identical words sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Act of 1895, reads as follows : —
' An underground bakehouse shall not be used as a bakehouse unless it was so used
at the passing of this Act'—i.e., August 17th, 1901.
Under this sub-section proceedings were recently instituted by direction of the Council's Public
Health Committee in a case, the undisputed facts of which are as follows : —An underground
bakehouse at North Kensington ceased to be used on August 4th, 1901, the occupying tenant
having been ejected by his landlord, who, late in September (as I was informed), began to
repair the house (which had gone out of rating though still occupied in tenements), and whitewashed
the bakehouse, with a view to its future use as a bakehouse. Hearing, in Octo'ber,
1901, that the premises were advertised to be let as a bakehouse, I called the agent's attention
to the provisions of the sub-section, and subsequently saw the owner, who admitted that the
bakehouse was not 'used' on August 17th, 1901. The bakehouse remained out of use until
December 31st. On that day (it was stated) the owner, who carries on a baker's business
at Islington, began to bake bread on the premises, and continued to carry on the business
by a resident employe thereafter. The Council took proceedings against the owner (under
sub-section (6) of section 101), for using the bakehouse in contravention of the Act. The case
was heard before the magistrates of the Kensington Division on March 11th, 1902. The
solicitor for the defendant relied on the decision of the High Court in the case above cited
(Schwerzerhof v. Wiliins), which he held to be on 'all-fours' with the case under consideration
; and with this view the magistrates concurred, dismissing the summons, without costs,
at the same time offering to state a case. The matter in due course came before the Law
Committee, who decided not to proceed to appeal, so that no opportunity was afforded for
ascertaining whether this was a case, in which, as Mr. Justice Wright had suggested, ' the
Court might take a different view' to that taken in the case cited.
"So far, then, the attempt to close unsuitable underground bakehouses—if that was the
object aimed at by the Legislature in the Acts of 1895 and 1901—has failed in regard to
individual cases. But the Act of 1901 goes much further than the Act of 1895, as it provides
(section 101 (2)) that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)—
'After the first day of January, 1904, an underground bakehouse shall not be used
unless certified by the District Council to be suitable for that purpose.'
The following sub-section (3) defines an underground bakehouse to mean—
' A bakehouse, any baking room of which is so situate that the surface of the floor
is more than three feet below the surface of the footway of the adjoining street, or of the
ground adjoining or nearest to the room. The expression " baking room" means any
room used for baking or for any process incidental thereto.'
And then follows the crucial sub-section (4), which enacts that—
' An underground bakehouse shall not be certified as suitable, unless the District
Council is satisfied that it is suitable as regards construction, light, ventilation, and in all
other respects.'
With few exceptions the bakehouses in the Borough are underground bakehouses, being
generally the two basement rooms—kitchen and scullery—of an ordinary dwelling house,
adapted by the construction of one or more ovens under the footway of the adjoining street;
* Law Reports, 1898.—I., Q.B., p. 640.