View report page

87
Prosecutions.—In two instances prosecutions failed against clubs, the
magistrates holding that they were dwelling-houses, and therefore
specially excluded from the operation of the Act. An appeal was taken
and heard before Lord Alverstone, L.C.J., Lawrance and Kennedy, J.J.,
on December 9th, 1903. As this is an important case, I give a report
of the case:—
McNair v. Baker.
"This was a case stated by a Metropolitan magistrate on the hearing
of information by a Sanitary Inspector for the City of Westminster,
which alleged that the defendant had made default in complying with a
notice of the City Council requiring him to abate a nuisance arising
from black smoke having been allowed to issue from a furnace chimney
at his premises, situate and being St. James's Club. The defendant was
the Secretary of the Club.
"The magistrate found as facts that the respondent did not abate the
nuisance or otherwise comply with the notice, and that the chimney sent
forth black smoke in such quantity as to be a nuisance. But he held
that the chimney was the chimney of a private dwelling-house within
the meaning of Section 24 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and
dismissed the summons with costs. The plaintiff appealed. Section 24
(b) of the above Act provides that 'any chimney (not being the chimney
of a private dwelling-house) sending forth black smoke in such quantity
as to be a nuisance ' shall be a nuisance liable to be dealt with summarily
under the Act.
" The facts stated in the caso were that the Club consisted of 750
members, was managed by a Committee, had occupied the premises for
thirty or forty years, previously to which they had been used as the
French Embassy. These premises comprised the ordinary accommodation
of a West End Club, with five bedrooms for the use of members,
and eight other bedrooms for the use of the staff. In the basement of
the premises there were several covered-in cooking ranges, a large
roasting grate, and a vertical boiler with furnace attached. The smoke
from these discharged into one flue, which was the chimney
complained of.
'Macmorran, K.C. (Joseph Hurst with him) appeared for the appellant,
and relied on the case of Queen Anne Residential Mansions and Hotel Go.
v. Mayor of Westminster 46 Sol. J., 70. Boydell Houghton appeared for
the respondent.
"Lord Alverstone, L.C.J., said that the appeal must be allowed. On
the facts found by the magistrate it was impossible to come to the conclusion
that the premises were a private dwelling-house. Having regard
to the section of the Act, he thought that it was not the construction of