View report page

118
confirmation of these by-laws, as if the same were being erected in a
building newly erected."
Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., and Mr. Courthope-Munroe were for the
appellants; Mr. Avory, K.C., and Mr. F. Dodd for the respondent.
The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that these
by-laws ought to be supported except in a very clear case of their being
unreasonable or of their not covering what was complained of, particularly
when they were sanitary by-laws, for it was important that the local
authority should be supported. For that reason he rejected the implied
argument that, because there was an existing system of ventilation, the
magistrate should have taken that into consideration The magistrate
found in favour of the appellants that there was very little chance of
syphonage or regurgitation, but that was nil ad rem. The only thing he
had to consider was whether there was a breach of the bye-laws as properly
construed. His Lordship considered that there was power to make these
by-laws under section 202 or the Act of 1855, and these general powers
ought to be construed liberally. These by-laws were in no sense ultra
vires, and that issue tended to divert the mind from the judicial consideration
of their proper construction. It was only in strong circumstances
that a by-law ought to be held to be unreasonable, and these by-laws were
neither unreasonable nor ultra vires. All they had to do with was thenconstruction,
and it must be remembered that when they were dealing
with penalties the proceeding was quasi-legislative, and there should be at
least as much clearness and certainty as in statutes and provisional orders
imposing penalties. A person who had to make up his mind what his
duties and liabilities would be was entitled to be told in reasonably plain
language what he was to do, particularly in the case of existing buildings.
When by-laws were applied to old buildings, it was not putting too much
a burden on the local authority to say that they must state in reasonablyplain
language what were the burdens put on owners. In this case, in the
course of altering the drains some of the pans and traps were injured.
There was no change of the upward soil pipe. There was nothing done
in the way of reconstruction except where the traps and pans were broken.
The respondent contended that the by-law was to apply in a case where
really there was nothing but repair of the pans and traps, and there was
no reconstruction or intention to reconstruct. If a local authority desired
to say that when one repaired any part of an existing closet or repaired
the closet itself one was bound to remodel the ventilation, they were
bound to say so in plain terms. The question was whether they had said
so here. He doubted whether the magistrate had not gone a little too