View report page

27
Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health—1896.
APPENDIX.
REGINA v. SLADE and THE VESTRY OF ST. GEORGE, SOUTHWARK.
This case, in which the Salvation Army asked that a rule nisi might he upheld,
came before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Mr. Justice Wright in the High
Court of Justice on the 1st of May, 1896, and was decided yesterday (4th May) in
favour of your Vestry.
Mr. Macmorran, Q.C. and Mr. F. Low appeared for the Vestry, Mr. Willis, Q.C.
and Mr. Munroe for the Salvation Army, whilst Mr. Sutton represented Mr. Slade the
learned magistrate.
The Vestry will remember the case arose out of an order, made last year by
Mr. Slade prohibiting any future over-crowding in the Blackfriars Shelter. This order
was given as a result of a prosecution by your Vestry, the hearing of which extended
over a period of four months, during which time the magistrate himself inspected the
Shelter.
On the day the order was made it is worthy of note that Counsel for "General "
Booth declared that "Whatever the magistrate's decision might be the Salvationists would
abide by it loyally." Instead, however, of observing this course, the Salvation Army
proceeded to raise certain "puerile objections" of a highly technical kind, against the
wording of the order.
In giving judgment against Mr. Booth, the Lord Chief Justice said:—"I think this
rule ought to be discharged.'' The order of the magistrate was made on the 21st
November, 1895. The order states that proof had been given that the nuisance complained
of existed " at the said premises, and the same is caused by the act, default, or
sufferance " of the person charged, and the Magistrate then prohibited the recurrence
of the nuisance. The rule for a certiorari was obtained upon the grounds :—
(1) "That 'house' is not mentioned in the notice, summons, or order, and
premises are not a house." (2) "That the persons proved to have been at the
premises in question were not "inmates" thereof within the meaning of the Act."
The notice of the 21st July, 1895, to the chief officer in charge of the Salvation Army
shelter states that the Sanitary Authority is satisfied of the existence of a nuisance at
the premises situate at 115a, Blackfriars Road, aforesaid; that the said premises, or
certain parts thereof, are so overcrowded as to be injurious or dangerous to the health
of the inmates. It is not disputed that if, after the word "premises," the words
" being a dwelling house " had been inserted the notice would be good.
The question is whether the omission of these words makes it bad. I am of
opinion it does not. The premises are mentioned by words of description. They are
called a shelter. The language is applicable to a dwelling house, and not to a factory.
The section which is material is Sect. 2, Sub-Sect. (1), Sub-Clause (e) of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891. Further provision is made by Sub-Sect. 2 (11).