View report page

116
December, 1902, owing to the substitution of an iron pipe or drain for one
of ordinary Doulton ware, they found it necessary to put new traps and
pans connected with 33 water-closets in their buildings as the old traps
and pans were broken during the progress of the work, but there was no
change in the upright soil pipe. They were then informed by the local
authority that these new traps must be fitted with anti-syphonage pipes,
in accordance with by-law 17 of the London County Council drainage
by-laws, because, by by-law 21. the by-laws were made applicable to new
work in old buildings as far as practicable. The defendants refused to
comply, on the ground that these by-laws were not applicable and were
unreasonable ; and it was now further contended that they were ultra vires.
The local authority thereupon took out 33 summonses for non-compliance
in the case of each of the 33 closets, in order that these questions might
be settled in a Court of law. There did not appear to be any material
dispute as to facts ; but the defendants, in order to support their contention
as to the unreasonableness of the by-laws, called evidence that the soil
pipes were of such dimension, namely, five inches in diameter, that the
evils of syphonage, to prevent which these by-laws had been made, could
not possibly occur, and that the expense which be entailed by compliance
with the by-law was so great as to make the application impracticable.
Mr. Dodd, for the local authority, contended that he had no right to
consider any questions except the application of the by-law and its
practicability. He had with some hesitation come to the conclusion that
the contention was right. The by-laws admitted of no exception for the
case of new buildings which contained a system of drainage where there
was no probability of syphonage, and he did not think he was at liberty
to create such an exception in the case of old buildings, to which the
by-laws applied. If this were possible a dispute might be raised on each
case, and the by-laws rendered practically valueless. He set aside,
therefore, the question of whether the by-law was necessary or even useful
in this particular case. Then, as to its practicability, he did not think
there was any evidence that compliance with the by-law was not
practicable. The figures given for the probable expenses went far beyond
this case, and he did not consider they ought to affect his judgment. The
words "so far as practicable," in his opinion, were intended for cases
where large structural alterations or demolition of buildings would be
necessitated by the application of the by-law, which was not the case here.
He thought, therefore, that the application was practicable. He also
considered that the work done involved the application of the by-laws to
these traps. Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., contended that the work must
involve a re-construction of the rooms in which the water-closets were