View report page

123
that is my submission.—Mr. Hopkins: I mean as a right. If you
serve me with a notice to put my drains in order, and I set about it,
may your Inspector come to watch? It may be that I am unwise in
not letting him, but may he come and watch as a matter of right?—
Mr. Topham: I submit so. Look at the difficulty. If they
complete the work and cover it in, how are we to see that it has been
properly done without going to the expense of uncovering it?—Mr.
Hopkins: Yes, there is that difficulty about it, but I don't see what
right a Sanitary Inspector has, when a person who is carrying out
work under a notice from the Council, to go and watch.—Mr.
Topham: I submit that it is a necessary incident of carrying out the
Act.— Mr. Hopkins: But in order to obstruct an Inspector, you see,
he has got to be 'duly employed in the execution.' Surely he is not
'duly employed in the execution' in going to the premises of a
person who is doing drain work under a notice.—Mr. Topham : The
Inspector, I submit, is in the due execution of that which is implied
by the man's very title— Inspector.—Mr. Hopkins: But he may not
go and watch the householder doing the work, surely?—Mr. Topham:
I submit, yes, Sir.—Mr. Hopkins: I don't think so.—Mr. Topham
repeated that if work was covered up without being inspected it
would be difficult, without going to the expense of uncovering it, to
know whether it had been properly carried out.—Mr. Hopkins:
You go there again if you have reason to suppose there is another
nuisance, and if you find another nuisance you proceed again. The
point is whether the Inspector is in due execution of the Act when
be watches the householder doing work under your notice. Surely
he is not?—Mr. Topham: I take it that inspection is necessary in all
stages of the work.—Mr. Hopkins: I want to leave out the question
whether it is wise for the householder to keep the Inspector off his
premises. I want to put the question whether he can go there as a
right.—Mr. Topham: Surely we have the right to inspect and
re-inspect as often as we like?—Mr. Hopkins: Surely the Council
are functus officio for the purposes of a particular nuisance when
they give their statutory notice and leave the business in the hands
of the householder?—Mr. Topham: Yes, sir; but a fresh cause of
nuisance might arise in the course of the work, for which a fresh
notice might be necessary.—Mr. Hopkins: The householder's
answer would be—'I am doing the work for which you have given
me notice, and I am doing it in my own way. If there is anything
wrong, you can come down afterwards.'—Mr. Topham: Very well,
sir, if your worship takes that view.—Mr. Burton Ward, in justice to
the defendant, mentioned that Inspector Fisher had been informed