View report page

77
the said chimney smoking on several dates and drew the
attention of the said Charles Turle Wilson, the Sanitary
Inspector, to it. He admitted, in cross-examination, that
he could give no definite dates. He also admitted that the
said Power Station was equipped with the best appliances
for dealing with and preventing smoke nuisance, and that
he was unable to suggest any structural or mechanical
improvements or alterations therein, but the Respondents''
Engineer had told him that the Respondents might look
after their stokers better.
5. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that
as the statutory notice referred to in paragraph 3 of this case,,
alleging a nuisance on the 24th October, 1910, was dated the
5th November, 1910, and as no further nuisance occurred until
9th April, 1911, the occurrence of a nuisance of a similar
character on such later date was not evidence of default on the
part of the Respondents in complying with the terms of the
statutory notice within the time specified under Section 4 (4)
of the said Public Health (London) Act, 1891, that is three
days from the service of the said notice. It was further contended
on behalf of the Respondents that the statutory notice
of November 5th had been complied with, inasmuch as the
nuisance therein referred to of October 24th, 1910, had been
abated, and that the nuisance arising on the 9th April, 1911,
was a separate and independent occurrence unconnected with
the nuisance of October 24th, 1910. Reference was made
to the case of the Battersea Borough Council v. Georg 71
J. P. 11.
6. In reply to this contention it was argued on behalf
of the Appellants that the existence of the nuisance on 9th
April, 1911, must be taken as evidence that the Respondents
failed to comply with the requirements of the notice which
required abatement, and further required the Respondents
to do what was necessary to prevent the recurrence of the