View report page

117
Wimbledon Urban District Council v. Hastings.
High Court of Justice. King's Bench Division.
June 24th 1902.
Before Lord Alverstone, L.C.J., Darling and Channell, J.J.
Public Health Act, 1875, Sections 91 and 102—Nuisance from Overcrowding—
Day School—Right of Entry.
A day school is a "house" within the meaning of Section 91 (5) of the
Public Health Act, 1875, and a nuisance may arise from overcrowding
due to an excessive number of scholars being taught in one room.
A Justice, before making an Order to admit the officer of a local authority
under Section 102 of the same Act, may receive evidence offered by
the occupier of the premises as to whether there is reasonable ground
for believing that a nuisance exists. The Order ought also to be
confined to the subject matter of the alleged nuisance.
This was an appeal by way of a case stated from the Surrey Quarter
Sessions, the appellants being the Wimbledon Urban District Council and the
respondent being the head-mistress of a high school for girls within the
district of the appellants. A complaint was made to the Council that one of
the schoolrooms was overcrowded, owing to too many scholars being taught
in the room at the same time. An inspector of nuisances visited the school
and applied for admission to examine the school, for the purpose of seeing
whether the alleged nuisance existed. The respondent refused to grant him
admission. A letter from the Clerk produced no better result. An application
was then made to the Justices of the Peace for an Order under Section 102 of
the Public Health Act, 1875, requiring the respondent to admit the inspector,
and upon the oath of the inspector an Order was made requiring the
respondent to admit the inspector to the premises.
The respondent appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and contended
that the Order was bad on several grounds, among others that Section 91 (5)
of the Public Health Act, 1875, applied only to dwelling houses and not to
day schools, so that there could be no nuisance within that provision, and that
scholars were not inmates, and also that the Justices had not reasonable
grounds for making the Order The form of the Order was also questioned
as being too general, as it did not specify any particular nuisance. The
respondent desired to tender evidence to show that the nuisance did not in fact
exist, but this evidence the Court of Quarter Sessions declined to hear; but
they decided that scholars were not inmates within the meaning of Section 91
(5) of the Public Health Act, 1875, and that therefore no nuisance was alleged
to exist. They therefore allowed the appeal, and quashed the Order of the
Justices.