View report page

100
Water supply in tenemented houses.
The very important question of what is a proper and sufficient
supply of water for a house in which each floor is let to a separate tenant,
has been before the Boroughs since the decision of the magistrate in the
Woolwich case. During the year 1906, in Southwark, upwards of three
hundred houses let out in separate floors, where the only water supply
was from a tap either in the yard or in the basement, have been served
with notices calling upon the owner to provide a sink and a supply of
water for the tenants of every floor of the house. In more than a
hundred houses the notices have been complied with, much to the comfort
and cleanliness of the families occupying them. In the case of 151,
Blackfriars Road, the top floor being let to a separate tenant, and the
only water supply to the house being from a tap in the basement, the
magistrate on a summons being taken out by the Council to compel the
owner to provide a tap and a sink on the top floor, decided that there
was not a proper and sufficient supply of water for the top floor letting.
and an order was made calling upon the owners to provide one. The
owners appealed against the magistrate's decision, and the appeal was
upheld when heard in the King's Bench Division.
The following is a report of the case, to which is appended the
circular letter and abstract received from the London County Council in
relation to this matter :—
"In the King's Bench Division judgment has been given in the case
of Messrs. Field & Sons (appellants) and the Southwark Borough Council
(respondents), on a case stated by Mr. Chapman, Magistrate at the Tower
Bridge Police Court, with respect to the water supply at No. 151,
Blackfriars Road, owned by the appellants. The magistrate held that the
supply was insufficient, there being none on the top floor.
"The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said: I do not think
this decision can possibly be supported. I doubt very much whether the
learned magistrate has considered the real and proper question. In
coming to the conclusion that this decision cannot be supported, I do so
mainly upon the ground that I think he has mixed up two different
matters, and has not, in coming to his decision, really regarded the
different state of things which may arise in consequence of those two
different matters.
"Now, taking the appellants, Messrs. Field & Sons, they have let this
house to a Mr. Brown, and they have let it on terms that he is not to
sub-let without their leave; and, without expressing any opinion as to