View report page

65
Part II.—Individual Houses.
On the 10th December, 1890, the Medical Officer of Health of St. Pancras
represented the dwelling houses Nos. 1 and 2, Thanet Court, Thanet
Street, St. Pancras, as unfit for human habitation. Proceedings were taken
under the enactments applied for the purpose of closing the premises as
set out in the third Schedule of the Housing of the Working Classes Act,
1890, against the Skinners' Company. The Magistrate held that a leaseholder
with only two years of his lease to run was the person to be served with notice
of proceedings for closing an insanitary dwelling under Section 32 of 53 and
54 Vict., Cap. 70. The leaseholder received rents and profits and the
Skinners Company were the freehold Owners. This decision was appealed
against and was heard in the Queen's Bench Division on the 5th and 9th
June, 1891, Osborne v. the Skinners' Company, before Mr. Justice Cave and
Mr. Justice Charles, and the appeal was allowed with costs and the case
remitted to the Magistrate with the opinion that the respondents were the
Owners upon whom the Closing Order should be made. (The Judgment
appeared in the Minutes of the Vestry of St. Pancras 1st July, 1891.)
In the meantime the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, had been passed
and this Act contained a further definition of Owner, and the first notices
having lapsed fresh Notices were served upon the Skinners' Company. Upon
the application for Summonses, the Magistrate declined to grant summonses
against the Owners as defined by the Housing of the Working Classes Act,
1890, and thought the person who ought to be summoned was the person who
was the Owner within the meaning of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
A rule was then applied for in the Queen's Bench Division and was argued
on the 18th June, 1892, bsfore Mr. Justice Wright and Mr. Justice Collins
when a Rule Absolute was made requiring the Magistrate to issue the
Summonses against the owner as defined by the Housing of the Working
Classes Act, 1890. (The Judgment appeared in the Minutes of the Vestry of St.
Pancras 29th June, 1892.)
The cases in which Closing Orders under Part II. of the Housing of the
Working Classes Act, 189J, have been applied for and not granted were in
respect to the following premiees, 90, Cromer Street (Cottage in rear of), 3,
Robert's Yard, Drummond Street, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Weir's
Passage (No. 3 being a Hall and No. 5 being closed by a Closing Order), the
odd numbers being on the South side, and the even numbers on the North
side, beginning at the east end of the Passage.
90, Cromer Street, Gray's Inn Road (Cottage in rear of), was represented
by the Medical Officer of Health on the 13th December, 1890, as unfit for
human habitation, and on the 17th December the Vestry of Saint Pancras
resolved that Notice be given to render the premises fit for human habitation
or in default that legal proceedings be taken. On the 6th January, 1891,
Notice was served, and not being complied with, a Summons was issued on
February 17th, and was heard on the 24th February at the Clerkenwell
Police Court and was dismissed on the Magistrate's view. Although called
the cottage in the rear of 90, Cromer Street, the building formed part of and
was a structural addition to and continuation of the rear of 90, Cromer
Street. The Magistrate suggested that the additional structure should be
dealt with as an obstructive building. Since then the demolition and reconstruction
of other properties at the rear have improved the conditions of light
and air of 90, Cromer Street.