View report page

15
Sanitary Committee of the Vestry were set at nought by a
peculiar combination of circumstances. The history of this
case begins so far back as April 13, when a complaint was
entered in the inspector's book of a stoppage of the drainage.
On May 2, a second complaint was entered in the inspector's
book, to the effect that there was offensive rubbish in the
yard; first floor dirty; no water to the closet. A notice
was served May 21. As nothing was done, a summons was
ordered by the Sanitary Committee at their meeting on June 16;
and heard at Marlboro'-street on July 8, when a person appeared,
representing the owner ; and as he promised to do what was
required, the magistrate, as usual, adjourned the case for
ten days, to give opportunity for his fulfilling the promise.
But nothing was done, and no one appeared to represent the
defendant when the adjourned summons was heard on 18th
July; so the magistrate granted a written order that the
work should be done forthwith ; viz., " within ten days from
the service of a true copy of the order to whitewash and
cleanse the premises, limewhite the yard, and repair the supply
pipe to the water closet." A copy of the order was served
on the 24th, on a person said to be son of the owner,—the same
that appeared on July 8th. Still nothing was done, and the
Committee at their meeting, on August 18th, directed a
summons to be taken out, calling on the defendant to show
cause why he should not suffer the penalties provided by the
14th Section of the Nuisances Removal Act; which says,
that "any person not obeying such order for abatement,
shall, if he fail to satisfy the justices that he has used all
due diligence to carry out such order, be liable for every such
offence to a penalty of not more than ten shillings per day
during his default." This summons was taken out, and came
on for hearing on the 1st September. The owner did not
appear; but as the constable who served the summons was