View report page

100
"Without reference to any particular case, but generally
upon the sections of the Act and their construction,
we are of opinion that when proceedings are taken,
under section 5, against the person ' by whose act,
default, or sufferance the nuisance exists or continues,'
two persons may be joined in one proceeding
should the local authority be of opinion that the
nuisance is wholly or partially caused by the acts or
defaults of such two persons, and in such case either,
or both, may be ordered to abate, or be prohibited
from continuing the nuisance (see section 120 of the
Act). To join mere inmates would, however, be
unnecessary and useless, unless the evidence of their
default be clear.
" In case, however, where proceedings are taken against
owner or occupier of offending premises as such,
the procedure appears to be in the alternative
against one or other, and we consider that if two
notices were served in respect of one set of premises
for summonses to be heard at the same time, the
local authority would run a great risk of having one
or other dismissed as irregular, with the consequent
liability as to costs.
" The obvious way sanctioned by the Act to overcome
obstruction is to proceed under section 116, and we
see no objection to a notice containing the order of
the Court made against the owner, and an appropriate
extract from section 116, being served on the
occupier.
" If this course be adopted, we think resort to ejectment
proceedings will be unnecessary."