View report page

10
The Committee had to adjudicate in a curious case in
Stafford-street. It was this. There is a public house
which has in its yard as appendages to the business, a
water closet and urinal. These places are well constructed,
and as inoffensive as such places can be in the yard of a
public house where they are visited from morning to
night. But they are situated close under the windows of
a bed room on the ground floor of the next house. This
bed room is very unwholesome, and the only air it receives
is tainted by the aforesaid places. The owner of the bed
room therefore complains to the Committee and brings a
file of medical certificates; of the bad effects of this room
on the health of the inmates there can be no doubt. He
asks them to compel the landlord to shut up or remove the
closet and urinal. The Committee think on the one hand
that it would be a serious precedent if they were to
interfere with such places on a man's own premises, if
they are well constructed and kept clean. If they were
to do so, complaints would pour in from every street. On
the other hand, the owner of the bed room came confessing
that the room was unhealthy, and from the evidence
of the medical officer it was manifestly deficient in air
and light, independently of any nuisance from without.
The Committee therefore desired the medical officer to
apply to the Magistrate at Marlborough-street for his
opinion. The Magistrate's Clerk declined to grant a
summons against the publican unless his urinal &c. were
dirty;—which they were not;—and advised that no application
should be made for a summons against the owner of the
bed room, inasmuch as it would be shabby to turn round
on a man and bring his own complaints in evidence against
him. The contending parties, thus left to themselves,
settled the matter by private arrangement; the urinal