View report page

17
Act, declaring the house unfit for human habitation, and
shutting it up. But he said, no; he had made one order on
the defendant, requiring him to whitewash, &c., and he could
not go back now and make a different order because the first
had been disobeyed. If we had wanted the house shut up,
we should have asked that at first. He said the alternative
was, either to inflict a penalty on the defendant, or to order
the Local Authority themselves to go in and do the work,
and recover the costs from the defendant. But the Sanitary
Committee, at their special meeting of the 3rd September,
thought that to accept the latter alternative would be a bad
precedent, and encourage other owners of property to resist
them; it would be easy to go in and cleanse a house, repair
drains, &c., but often impossible to recover costs; as was
exemplified by a case that once occurred; so they ordered the
penalties to be sued for, with Mr. Capron's assistance.
Accordingly Mr. Capron appeared at Marlboro'-street, on
the 7 th September, when the magistrate imposed on the
"owner" of No. 3, Steele's-court, a penalty of 2s. 6d. per
day and costs, for disobedience to the order served on him on
the 24th July; reckoning 26 days from the 24th July to the
20th August, when the summons for penalty was taken out.
And now came to the surface a curious point. This " order
for payment of costs, expenses, and penalties" (Sect. 20,
Form I., Nuisances Removal Act,) authorizes seizure of goods
of the defendant, or in default of sufficient distress, adjudges
him to be imprisoned for some term not exceeding three
calendar months. It is therefore a very serious penal kind
of instrument.
But whereas the Act says it is sufficient to designate the
owner of any premises as " the owner," without mentioning
his name, it so happens that the order (Form I.) requires a
name. It begins, " To—[name the person on whom the order
b