View report page

44
private premises from which the water supply had been withdrawn.
The nuisance was then promptly abated, but the owner had to be
subsequently summoned again for the non-payment of the costs,
amounting to 17/6, which were paid, together with 2/- as the
cost of the second summons. The other case was one in which a
Baker in spite of several remonstrances and much patience and a visit
from the Sanitary Committee, allowed himself to be summoned and
fined 10/- with 2/-costs in respect to each of his two Bakehouses,
otherwise in good condition, but the ceilings or tops of which
(consisting of the joists and flooring of the rooms above) he
declared could not and should not be whitened, endeavouring
to excuse himself upon the ground that the Bakehouses were
not ceiled and that the tops might therefore remain foul
and encrusted with black dirt without rendering him liable to
the charge of not keeping the Bakehouses in a cleanly state,
for which offence, however, it was that he was summoned under the
4th Section of "The Bakehouses Regulation Act, 1863," and convicted
in each case. After the Magistrate's decision it was found to be quite
possible to have the ceilings or tops scraped and most effectually
whitened, and they have since been kept so, the Bakehouses now
being quite a credit to the proprietor. Of the four heard before the
Justices, one was for a nuisance arising from defective drainage, but
the owner of the house having provided a new drain, during an
adjournment which took place owing to pressure of Court business,
the summons was withdrawn. Two others were against persons who
continued to keep Cows notwithstanding that the renewal of one of
the licences had been refused, and the other only granted conditionally
at the Annual Licensing of 1873, owing to their being in possession
of the two last of the underground wells. In the first of these cases
the Justices inflicted a penalty of £5 and 10/- costs, the well being
shortly afterwards filled up and the premises supplied with New
River Water and re-licensed. With the understanding that the well
in the other case was to be filled up by the owner, it was adjourned
on payment of 10/- costs, the Cowkeeper having already provided a
supply of New River Water for his own use. As it did not subsequently
appear that the well itself was actually in the yard where
the Cows were kept (although the pump was), but was believed
to be situated within the enclosed boundary oi the premises adjacent