View report page

30
16. Alderman Dickinson and Councillors Penfold and Rose were
re-appointed this Council's representatives on the
Committee to administer the Weir Trust for the
current year.
Weir
Hospital
Trust.
17. Councillors B. Allen and W. Eland, and Messrs. J. Cusden,
W. P. Mellhuish and J. Perry were appointed to act
in the administration of Henry Smith's Charity for the
ensuing four years.
Tooting
Charities.
18. The Council considered the subject of the result of the
Chairman not voting in Divisions at Meetings of the
Council when there is not a majority of the members
present either in favour of or against the question. Sec. 28 of 18 and
19 Vict., cap. 120, provides that all questions shall be decided by the
votes of the majority of the members present. This has been held
to mean all the members present whether voting or not. Sec. 75
of the Local Government Act, 1888, applies to the London County
Council Schedule II. of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which
provides (Rule 10) that all questions may be decided by the majority
of such members of the Council as are present and vote, and sec. 59
(1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, applies to the proceedings of
District Councils and Boards of Guardians Schedule I. of the Public
Health Act, 1875, which provides that questions at meetings shall be
decided by a majority of votes by the members present and voting on
that question.
19. The Council being of opinion that the law as to meetings of
Metropolitan Borough Councils should be the same as the abovementioned
provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, called the
attention of the Metropolitan Borough Councils' Association to the
matter, and asked them to consider the desirability of taking steps to
secure an amendment of Sees. 28 and 57 of the Metropolis Local
Management Act, 1855.
Chairman
not Voting
in Divisions.
20. A summons having been issued by the Council against the
London and South Western Railway Company for
failing to give notice of alterations to water-closets at
Earlsfield Station, the magistrate fined the defendants 20s. and 2s.
costs. The Company appealed against the decision, and the appeal
was heard in the High Court on the 8th and 9th March before Mr.
Alterations
to Waterclosets.