View report page

180
Lambeth Mews, thereby contravening the by-laws. A letter
was sent to the firm on each occasion, warning them that,
in any further case, action would be taken before the
Magistrate, and letters were received, in reply, offering an
apology, and stating that, in each case, it was an accident
due to lameness developing in the horse.
Under these circumstances, no further action was taken
for the infringement of the by-laws of the London County
Council.
2. Suggested Alteration of London County Council
By-Laws.
A letter, dated July 19th, 1909, was received from a firm of
fish offal contractors, suggesting that they should be allowed
to remove fish offal, in hermetically-sealed drums and by a
covered van, late on Saturday evening, so as to obviate the
offal remaining on premises from the collections on Saturday
mornings until Monday mornings, the time stated (Saturday
evenings) is outside that mentioned in the London
County Council By-laws, and a letter was sent to the contractors,
in reply, stating that the London County Council
By-laws must be carried out.
3. Important Legal Decision on London County
Council By-Laws.
An important Appeal (Kershaw v. Brooke) came before
the Divisional Court during 1909, by way of special case
from the decision of Mr. Plowden, the Metropolitan Police
Magistrate, sitting at the Marylebone Police Court, dismissing
certain summonses issued (1) under the Plans By-laws,
and (2) under the Drainage By-laws respectively made by the
London County Council. The question for the decision ot
the Divisional Court was as to who was the proper persons
to be brought before the Magistrate for the infringement of
these By-laws, the Borough Council concerned (Hampstead)
having summoned' the responsible person actually carrying