View report page

126
being served, as it was considered the premises were in such a
state that the occupation thereof should be immediately discontinued.
It was also very questionable whether the premises
were reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation.
The summonses were heard on the 16th December, but on
account of the conflicting evidence by the defendant's architect
and builder on the one hand, and the Medical Officer of Health
on the other, the Magistrate adjourned his decision until the
30th December, in order that he might inspect the houses. The
Magistrate had been asked to view both by the defendant's
solicitor and myself.
The Magistrate (Mr. Dickinson) in giving his decision, said:
" Their state is disgraceful, and quite unfit for human habitation."
Closing orders were made, and 25s. costs allowed in each case.
Allowance was asked for the tenants on account of expenses in
removing. The Magistrate authorised 10s. to be paid to each
tenant of Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 13, and 15s. to the tenant of No. 14.
A total of £10 5s., costs and allowances.
Notices were served upon the tenants to cease occupying the
houses by the 12th January.
After the decision of the Magistrate in the above instances, I
presented a report to the Committee as to how the law stands in
respect of the demolition of dwelling-houses after closing orders
had been made, and certain amendments required to the Acts
were also pointed out, and *I suggested that the attention of the
London County Council might be called to my remarks, as they
might induce the London County Council to reconsider "representationn
" which had been made to them.
The Committee directed communications to be addressed to
the London County Council and the Local Government Board
with reference to the matter. At the date of finishing this report,
11th March, 1905, the Housing of the Working Classes Committee
of the London County Council are about to lay before the
London County Council certain proposals in respect of my
" representations."