View report page

74
there The magistrate dismissed the complaint, holding that the stables and
yard did not constitute a "workplace" within the meaning of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, section 38 (54 and 55 Vict., c. 76). The appellant
being dissatisfied with this decision applied for, and the magistrate
accordingly stated, a case, which set out the above facts and yesterday came
on for hearing.
Mr. H. Courthope-Munroe and Mr. W. H. Leese, for the appellant, con-,
tended that the object of the Legislature was that factories, workshops, and
places where persons are employed should be fitted with sanitary conveniences.
This appeared from the Public Health Acts, 1890, section 22, and the Public
Health Act, 1875, section 38. The word "work-place " was intended to have
a wider meaning than factory or workshop. Counsel cited " Countess of
Rothes v. Kirkcaldy Waterworks Commissioners" (7 App. Cas., 694);
"Anderson v. Anderson" (1895 (1 Q.B., 749); "Attorney-General v. Mutual
Tontine Association "' (1 Ex.D., 469).
Mr. Macmorran, Q.C., and Mr. Ellis J. Griffith, for the respondent, contended
that the persons who frequented these premises were customers and
not workmen, and that the Act did not apply to this case. "Work-place"
must be taken to be a place in the nature of a factory or workshop.
The Court allowed the appeal.
Mr. Justice Grantham, in giving judgment, said that the magistrate had
found as a fact that the hirers of cabs and horses were in attendance on these
premises, which were clearly a " work-place " devoted to the work of cabcleaners
and horse-keepers within a confined area. The case therefore came
within section 38 of the Act, and the respondent ought to have been convicted.
Mr. Justice Channell concurred. If it were necessary to give to workshop
a meaning similar to factory and workshop the similarity must be in relation
to the objects of the Act. The stables were analogous to a factory or workshop,
in so far as they held numerous persons at work permanently in a
confined space. When once it was decided that the premises were a workplace,
sanitary conveniences must be supplied, and it then became necessary
to consider the sufficiency of those sanitary conveniences. For that purpose
the needs of those in attendance on the premises had to be taken into account.
The magistrate had found as a fact that the hirers of cabs were in attendance,
and that being so, they were not the less so because they were customers.
Domestic Workshops. Outworkers.—The Order of the Secretary of State,
dated January 27th, 1896, with regard to Lists of Outworkers, made under
Section 65 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, Section 27 of the Factory
and Workshop Act, 1891, and Section 44 of the Factory and Workshop Act,
1895, requires—
"The occupier of every factory and workshop (including any workshop
conducted on the system of not employing any child, young person.
or woman therein) in the business of which persons are employed in:
The manufacture of articles of wearing apparel,
The manufacture of electro-plate,