View report page

116
"No person (other than an Officer of Customs or a person acting in the
"execution of this Order) shall leave the aforesaid ship until after
"such visit of the Officer of Customs as is mentioned in Article 2, or
"until after the visit of the Medical Officer of Health in pursuance of
"Article 8."
Article II.—Extends similar regulations applying to Gloucester and Bristol,
and
Article III.—Those applying to Liverpool and Manchester, and the following
Notice is added:—
Notice.—The Public Health Act, 1896, provides by sub-section (3) of
Section 1 that if any person wilfully neglects or refuses to obey or carry
out, or obstructs the execution of, any regulation made under section
one hundred and thirty of the Public Health Act, 1875, or in pursuance
of that section as extended to London by the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891, and as amended by the Public Health Act, 1896, he shall be
liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in the case
of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding fifty pounds
for every day during which the offence continues.
LEGAL DECISIONS.
The King v. Jones
Removal to Hospital of a person suffering from Small-pox by Order of a Magistrate
upon a certificate of a Medical Officer of Health.
On the 2nd May, 1902, in the King's Bench Division, Mr. Schultess Young
moved for a rule nisi for a certiorari to quash an Order made by Mr. T. F.
Jones, a Justice of the Peace for Surrey, under Section 124 of the Public
Health Act, 1875, that one, W. C. Quelch, residing with his father, Mr. J. J.
Quelch, at Onslow Gardens, Wallington, should be removed to the Small-pox
Hospital at Cheam, on the ground that he was suffering from that disease and
that there was no proper accommodation at his father's residence. Counsel
stated that the patient was 26 years of age, the house was well fitted for his
accommodation, there was no one in the house but the patient and his mother
and a nurse; and the Magistrate made the Order without notice to Mr. Quelch
on a certificate given by Dr. Fegen, Medical Officer of Health for the Rural
District of Croydon. Mr. Quelch had obstructed and prevented the execution
of the Order and was now summoned for a penalty. There was no evidence
of want of proper accommodation. An appeal was pending against the Order.
The patient was now well and in Court. If the certificate was on oath there
might be evidence of want of proper accommodation.
The Lord Chief Justice said there must be no rule in this case as the
Magistrate was entitled to act on the certificate of a medical man under
Section 124 of the Act, and certiorari did not lie as to the exercise of jurisdiction
by Magistrates on a matter in which they had jurisdiction.—(Times,
3rd May, 1902.)