View report page

legal proceedings. 65
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
Summaries of the results of cases heard during the year will be found in the fo11owing
tabular statements:—The total amount awarded in fines and costs was £208 5s. 6d., £32 19s.
being awarded in cases under the Health Acts, and £175 6s. 6d. under the Food and Drugs
Acts. In 1901, a total of £179 9s. was awarded, viz., £40 16s. under the Health Acts, and
£138 13s. under the Food and Drugs Acts. Under the latter Acts the average fine increased
from £2 His., in 1901, to £3 3s. 8d., in 1902; costs also increased by one shilling.
The most important case, under the Health Acts, was that relating to the combined drain
at Nos. 1 to 12, Windsor Gardens, which was dismissed with costs against the Council
(10s. 6d. on each of twelve summonses). Proceedings were taken under Sec. 85 of the Metropolis
Management Act, 1855, as amended by Section 64 of the Amending Act of 1862. The facts
were briefly as follows:—Nos. 1 to 12 (inclusive), Windsor Gardens, are drained by a
combined system of drainage discharging into the public sewer in Harrow Road. The combined
drain was found, on examination, to be defective and much in need of repair. Sufficient
records had been found among the documents of the late Commissioners of Sewers, to
enable the Solicitor to form an opinion that the system was a private drain repairable by the
owners of the houses, and notices requiring such repair were served. Nothing was done, and
the Council had to take further action in the matter. Under the Section mentioned above,
the Council has the alternative of either re-constructing the combined drain and recovering
the cost (Section 85, Metropolis Management Act, 1855), or of proceeding for penalties for
non-compliance with the notice issued. The latter course was selected.
At the hearing, the Defendants were represented by a Solicitor who raised the point
that there had been no non-compliance for which penalties could be sued under Section 64, of
the Act of 1862. Section 8 5, of the Act of 1855, enacts that a "notice" may be served
requiring repairs, &c., but Section (64, of the Act of 1862, provides penalties for failing to
comply with the " order" of the Vestry (now Council). Mr. Curtis Bennett held that the
" order " in Section 64 could not be the same as the " notice " in Section 85, and dismissed
the summonses. A case was asked for, but before any definite action had been taken in
connection therewith, the Council ordered the combined drain to be relaid. This was done
and the expense of the work fell on the rates as the unsuccessful summonses barred proceedings
to recover the cost of re-construction.