View report page

75
The learned Chairman, in giving judgment, said that the order
of the Vestry, so far as it concerned the first two houses in question
had been complied with, and therefore the pipe was a drain and not
a sewer. If the remaining houses had never been built it could not
be contended that the pipe thereby became a sewer, and the position
in this case was exactly similar. He agreed that the true test was
that suggested by Mr. Munroe,viz: that in the absence of any increase
in the burden of sewage on the pipe it became and remained a drain
and not a sewer. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs
the learned Chairman refusing to state a case for the High Court.
The second combined drainage case in which the Council was
concerned in 1907 was heard at the Hampstead Petty Sessions on
December 4th. In this case the Council made a complaint against the
owners of the stables in the rear of Lested Lodge, and forming a part
of Weatherall Stables, Christ Church Road, for allowing the drains
of the stable to be in a defective condition. The defendants admitted
the defects, but alleged that the pipe in question was not a drain
but a sewer for which the Council was responsible. When
Weatherall Stables (of which the premises formed a part) were
originally built and drained, they undoubtedly formed one house
structurally, and were in one occupation. Some years later various
internal alterations were carried out, and the stables were divided
into two by the blocking up of an internal door, and they then
were separately occupied and in different ownerships. The pipe that
drained the portion of the stables in question carried also the drainage
of the remaining portion of the stables, and the defendants contended
that these portions were separate buildings, and that the pipe was a
sewer as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855.
It was contended by Mr. Turner on behalf of the Council that the
whole of Weatherall Stables formed one building only, and the
cases of Humphrey v. Young and Hedley v. Webb were quoted in
support of this view. The Justices decided in favour of the Council,
and made an order on the defendants to abate the nuisance. This
case was not taken to a higher Court.
In June, 1907, a letter was received from the Middle Classes
Defence Organisation, in which objections were raised to the bye.
laws of the London County Council that require the deposit of plans
and descriptions of sanitary work with the sanitary authority. From