View report page

59
BYE-LAWS AS TO LODGING-HOUSES.
Arlidge v. Islington Borough Council.
This was a case in which the landlord of a registered lodging-house
appealed from a decision of a magistrate that he was liable to a penalty for
not causing every part of the premises to be cleansed in accordance with the
Bye-laws in force in the Metropolitan Borough of Islington.
On behalf of the appellant it was stated that he had let the premises in
question on a yearly tenancy, not in writing, and no right of entry was
reserved to the landlord; and he had not complied with a notice as to
cleansing the premises, as he contended that he had not the right to enter the
house and that he would commit a trespass if he did.
The case was heard in the King's Bench Division on the 29th March, 1909,
before Lord Alverstone, L.C.J., Darling and Jelf, J.J.
The Court allowed the appeal, deciding that a Bye-law made under the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requiring a landlord to cleanse lodginghouses
let to a tenant, and which the landlord has no right to enter, is
unreasonable and invalid.
PROVISION OF A WATER SUPPLY TO THE UPPER STOREYS
OF A HOUSE
Under Section 78 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1907.
Griffith v. Weatheritt (Southwark Borough Council).
This was an appeal to Quarter Session by a person, upon whom an order had
been made at the Lambeth Police Court, to provide proper and sufficient
water supply to the upper floors of a tenement house situated at 16, Olney
Street, Southwark, as required by Section 75 of the London County Council
(General Powers) Act, 1907.
The premises were occupied by two separate families, the family without a
supply of water being on the top floor. There were three storeys, the lowest
one being a half-basement. The water supply was from two taps, one in the
yard, and the other in a wash-house in the yard.
The case was heard at the Session on the 1st January this year, when the
Bench unanimously dismissed the appeal, and upheld the Magistrate's Order
with costs.