View report page

102
the structure as let, and I think the learned magistrate, when he found
that as let by Messrs. Field & Sons there was a sufficient supply of water,
ought to have said, "I cannot call upon these owners to fulfil an increased
burden due to an act which they are not shown to be responsible for."
Whether or not any order could have been made against Mr. Brown
because he had let the room without a proper water supply I express no
opinion at present. All I say is that the magistrate has gone too far
when he has held that an owner who has let a house with these
restrictions becomes an owner liable to put in a fresh water supply
because the tenant has underlet one of the rooms in the house. I think
therefore that this appeal must be allowed, and the order must be
quashed.
"Mr. Justice Darling: I am of the same opinion.
"Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence: I agree.
"Mr. Herbert: The appeal will be allowed, with costs ?
"The Lord Chief Justice: Yes."
(Copy).
"LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL,
County Hall,
Spring Gardens, 8.W.,
1th February, 1905.
Sir,
I have pleasure in forwarding herewith a copy of an extract from
the report of the Public Health Committee, which was adopted by
the Council on the 31st ultimo, on the subject of the supply of water
to tenement houses. In accordance with the resolution passed by
the Council, I am to call the attention of the Southwark Metropolitan
Borough Council to the decision of the magistrate at the Woolwich
Police Court on 16th December, 1904, to the effect that the supply
of water from a tap in the yard is not a proper and sufficient supply
within the meaning of section 48 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, and I am to express the Council's hope that the Borough
Council will take all possible steps to secure the provision of a
proper and sufficient supply of water for the tenants of every floor of
a tenement house.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed) G. L. Gomme,
Clerk of the Council.
The Town Clerk,
Metropolitan Borough of Southwark."