London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

St Pancras 1904

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Pancras, London, Borough of]

This page requires JavaScript

Regulations for guidance in the construction of public urinals are under
(Before Wills and Kennedy, J.J., 19th January, 1904).
Oliver v. Camberwell Borough Council.
Metropolis—Public health—Nuisance—Intimation notice threatening proceedings—"Sewer"
described therein as a "drain"—Recipient executing
repairs to sewer—Right to recover cost of work from Sanitary Authority
—Whether work done voluntarily or under compulsion—Builder fraudulently
laying a sewer instead of authorised drain—Effect of—Public
Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., cap. 76), ss 3, 4.
An owner, who is served with an intimation of a nuisance under sec. 3 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requiring him to repair a "drain,"
and who thereupon complies, must be held to have done the work voluntarily,
and not under compulsion, although the notice contains a threat that the
authority will commence proceedings against him by the service of a statutory
notice, if the repairs are not done within a week.
Therefore, if the so-called "drain" proves to be a "sewer," he cannot
recover from the authority the cost of the repairs.
Query, what may be the respective rights and duties of an owner and an
authority where a builder, authorised to lay a " drain " from a house, has, in
fraud of the authority, joined it to the drain from another house, so as to
constitute it a "sewer."
J.P.R., 16.4, 1904.
(Before Channell, J., without a Jury, March 18th, 19th, 1904.)
Heaver and Others v. Mayor, etc., of Fulham.
Local Government—Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict., c. 120),
ss. 76, 83, 101, 250—Drain or Sewer—Drainage of two houses by combined
operation—Transfer of title otherwise than by purchase—Estoppel.
A metropolitan vestry had approved a plan for the drainage of a number of
houses which did not show the particular drainage of each house, but authorised
the drainage of the houses in pairs by a series of combined operations. In a
pair of such houses, the drainage was carried off by two pipes, laid one under
each house; these pipes joined into one pipe before they reached the sewer.
The pipe under house A took the whole of the drainage of A, together with
that from a sink in the back part of house B; the pipe under B took the rest
of the drainage of B. The connection between the sink in B and the pipe
under A had been made at the time when the houses and the drains were constructed.
The trustees of a settlement were owners of both houses; they
derived their title, without any purchase for value, from the original owner,
by whom the houses and drains were constructed. The Court inferred as a
fact that the connection of the sink in house B with the pipe under A was
made by the authority of the surveyor to the vestry.