View report page

141
report any case of overcrowding to the Sanitary Authority:
it would have been to the keeper's interest to do so
in the above case and it is difficult to understand why he failed
in so obvious a duty. On consideration of the report, your
Vestry decided (23rd September), to apply to the Local Government
Board for sanction to a bye-law requiring the keeper of a
registered house to report overcrowding, as follows
"If any lodger in a registered house cause or suffer any room under his
control to be occupied by a greater number of persons than is allowed by this
bye-law. it shall be the duty of the keeper of the registered house, upon his
becoming aware of the fact, to notify such fact to the Medical Officer."
The Local Government Board's views on the subject of
this proposed bye-law have not yet been received.
The Utility of Bye-laws.—In connection with the question
of overcrowding reference may be made to a case which
serves as an illustration of the utility of bye-laws. The keeper of a
registered house, who had had a notice served upon him to abate
overcrowding, applied to the Magistrate at the West London
Police Court for advice. He stated that he had been required
to abate the nuisance within three days, but could not comply
because the tenants (six persons living and sleeping in one
room) would not go out. He desired, therefore, to have an
ejectment order. The Magistrate, presumably unacquainted
with the provisions of your Vestry's bye-laws, observed that the
applicant would have to serve the tenant with the proper
notice, the first step in a process for ejectment which usually
requires about six weeks for its completion. But the applicant
(as "keeper" of the registered house) was equally liable with
the, "lodger" to the penalties prescribed by the bye-law for the
offence of overcrowding, and, somehow, he succeeded, without
much loss of time beyond that allowed him by your Vestry,
(for he was not entitled to notice) in getting rid of his
objectionable tenants, and thus abating the nuisance.