View report page

90
that the tenants would not leave, I recommended the service
of copies of the orders upon each of them. Copies were prepared,
but the warrant officer would not serve them as the
orders had been made upon the agents only. It was a legal
point which I desired to have determined—whether the occupiers,
having had their attention drawn to the fact that closing
orders had been made, were guilty of an offence under section
5 (9) by refusing to quit ? Another point was whether copies
of the orders should have been served upon them? And
another, whether there would be any advantage, when proceeding
for a closing order, to proceed under the provisions of
the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890? This Act
requires that, on the representation of the Medical Officer of
Health, or information given, the local authority, if satisfied
that any dwelling house is unfit for human habitation, must,
after serving the proper notice on the owner or occupier, take
steps to obtain a closing order against such dwellings ; and
when a closing order has been made the local authority must
serve seven days' notice of the order upon every occupying
tenant of the dwelling house, who is liable, on default, to a
fine of twenty shillings a day. It was an incident in the cases
under consideration that the houses were in a dangerous condition
by reason of a defective parapet and otherwise. As
dangerous structures, they were reported to the County
Council by whom proceedings were taken, at the Police Court,
which led to the demolition of the parapet.
The report of the Law Committee on the reference was as
follows:—
" We are asked whether in taking proceedings for the
abatement of a nuisance under sections 4 and 5 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, there is
power, by notice, to bring both the occupier and
owner of the offending premises before the Court,
and to obtain such an order as will prevent obstruction
to the Vestry's officials in carrying out the order
of the Court.