View report page

75
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
Summaries of the results of cases heard during the year are given in the appended
tabular statements. The total amount of fines and costs was £163 12s. fid., as compared with
£208 5s. fid. in 1902, and £179 9s. in 1901. Dividing the cases into two groups, (a) under
Health Legislation, and (b) Adulteration Legislation, the amounts for the three years were:—
Health Cases. Adulteration Cases.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
1903 63 6 0 100 6 6
1902 32 19 0 175 6 6
1901 40 16 0 138 13 0
The average fine and costs in the adulteration cases were £3 1s. fid. and 15s. 7d.
respectively, being a trifle lower than in 1902.
The appeal case of Nokes & Nokes v. Mayor, &c., of Islington, decided during the autumn
of last year, will have a far reaching effect on by-law legislation. The original summons for
failing to provide sufficient closet accommodation in a house let in lodgings, was taken out
against the "landlord" under By-law pursuant to Sec. 39 (1) of the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891. The decision of the Court was that the By-law was invalid on the ground that
it made no provision for service of notice on the party liable, as a precedent to proceedings
for penalties. The Court appears to have been guided by the fact that under Sec. 37 of the
Act, dealing with the provision of closet accommodation, the local authority is directed
to serve a notice requiring accommodation (additional or otherwise) to be provided. That
Section sets up no standard accommodation, but leaves each case to be considered and decided
upon by the local authority. Consequently the person liable to provide the accommodation
cannot tell what the requirements of the local authority are until he receives the notice.
On the other hand, the By-law fixes a standard for houses let in lodgings, so that one would
have thought that ignorance of the need of the house could not (in accordance with the rule
of English Law) be successfully pleaded. Moreover, Sec. 136 of the Public Health Act, 1875,
which governs the framing of By-laws under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, provides
a penalty for an offence against a By-law, and a daily penaltv for a continued offence—in the
latter case a notice in writing being requisite before the penaltv becomes operative. From
the construction of Sec. 136 there does not appear to be any need for a notice to render the
offender liable to the first fine.
As no attempt has been made to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal, the decision
will govern all proceedings under the various by-laws, and involves a re-casting of several
by-laws. The decision will considerably impair the usefulness of by-law legislation, as it has
been found that the liability to summary proceedings which has been supposed to exist,
encouraged many to undertake sanitary work promptly who would otherwise avail themselves
to the utmost of the delay involved in serving notices.
In the proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, it will be seen that 5
summonses were dismissed on the plea of "warranty." This defence is becoming each year
more common, and the difficulties arising therefrom almost insuperable. A case such as is
here sketched is no fancy case, but based on actual experience:—
A sample of milk was purchased of vendor A (an old offender). On service of the
summons, A gives notice of purchase under warranty from R and proves his defence to the
satisfaction of the Court. On proceedings being taken against B for giving a false warranty,
A is called as a witness for the prosecution, and as a result of the cross-examination of A,
the case against B is dismissed.