View report page

96
Underground Bakehouses.
An underground bakehouse to come within Section 101 of the factory and
Workshop Act, 1901, after the 4th January, 1901, must be a room so situate
that the surface of the floor is more than three feet below the surface of the
footway of the adjoining street or of the ground adjoining or nearest to the
room. There is no provision for an adjoining area for a bakehouse, and we
can only suppose that the surface from which the three feet must be measured
where the footway of the adjoining street is not applicable, must be that of
the ground physically nearest to the room, on whatever side of it. There
seems likely to be uncertainty as to this, but each case will, we think, have to
be decided on its own merits.
Weatheritt v. Cantlay.
Houses let in Lodgings.
This case was decided in the King's Bench Divisional Court on May 13th,
1901. The late Ve9try of St. George-the-Martyr, by their Sanitary Inspector
Weatheritt, summoned the Defendant Cantlay for non-compliance with an
Order of the Vestry to furnish information to enable the Authority to register
a block of artisan's dwellings as a lodging house, and on the hearing before
Mr. Slade, the Police Magistrate, the summons was dismissed. On the
application of the Vestry a case was stated for the decision of the High Court
and came before two Judges, who referred it to the tribunal above-mentioned.
After hearing the arguments, the Lord Chief Justice in giving Judgment
said:" I think, now this case has been argued out, that there is really no
difficulty in it. I do not think that any of the cases on the meaning of the
word' house' for the purpose of particular Statutes help us. I think we have
really to look to see what the object of this legislation was, and then construe
the words with reference to the object of the legislation. By Sub-section A of
Section 91 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891: 'Every Sanitary Authority
shall make and enforce such Bye-laws as are requisite for the following matters
—that is to say: (a) For fixing the number of persons who may occupy a house
or part of a house which is let in lodgings.' I think the object of this legislation
was to control the number of people who should occupy a tenement which may
fairly be described as a separate house, and that is shown by the words 'part
of a house which is let in lodgings.' Speaking for myself, I do not draw any
distinction between the words Met in lodgings' or occupied by members of more
than one family,' except that one state of facts may bring it within one set
of words, and another state of facts may bring it within the other, but whether
the lodgings are furnished or unfurnished for the purpose of this Section seems
to me to make no difference. I think I must find, in order to bring it within
the Section, either a house which is itself let in lodgings or a part of a house
which is let in lodgings. It is said, when you come to deal with the facts of
this case that you are to look at the whole structure and regard the whole building
of bricks and mortar as one house, and then, if you find it sub-divided inside,
it is a house which is, or a part of which is, let in lodgings. I do not
call attention to the extraordinary result of that argument except for the
purpose of trying to see why the Legislature should have put in those
limiting words, but one cannot help seeing that if Mr. Macmorran's view is
right there might be some very large structure of absolutely separate residen
t al flats, and if any one of them was let in lodgings the whole of them.