View report page

141
Subsequent to these Regulations or Statutory Rules and Orders the Local
Government Board have issued circulars drawing the attention of Port
Sanitary Autorities and certain other Sanitary Authorities to particular points.
The first circular dated 16th September, 1908, relates botli to Unsound Food
and to Foreign Meat, circular No. 2, dated 12th December, 1908, relates only
to Foreign Meat, as also do circular No. !3 and No. 4, dated respectively
20th January, 1909, and 29th April, 1909.
§ 4.—BY-LAWS.
No new Bv-laws were made during- the year.
•/
§ 5.—REGULATIONS.
No new Regulations were made during the year, excepting the Statutory
Regulations of the Local Government Board, already quoted under § 3. Orders.
§ 6. LEGAL DECISIONS.
EXTRACT FROM "PUBLIC HEALTH," p. 211.
High Court of Justice, lung'ft Bench Division—December 9th, 1907.
Farmer v. Long
Pallia Health (London) Act, 1891—Nuisance Procednr", Leaning Drai???.
In consequence of anonymous communication, a drain was tested and no
nuisance found. Afterwards it was opened up and found to be leaking.
On proceedings taken to abate the nuisance the Magistrate found that
there was a "leaking drain." This was held to be a sufficient finding of a
nuisance to entitle him to make an abatement order, and that the manner
in which the nuisance was discovered was immaterial.
This was a case stated by a Metropolitan Police Magistrate on the hearing
of a summons requiring the appellant as owner of certain premises to abate
a nuisance. It appeared that the sanitary authority received a complaint on
an anonymous post card, and that in consequence the drains were tested, with
no result. The authority then caused them to be opened up and found that
the drains had been laid with clay joints, that the clay had completely
perished, and- that the drain was leaking. No one had complained of any
smell or other nuisance. The Magistrate made an order to abate the nuisance.
The court dismissed the appeal.
Channei l, J., in the course of his judgment said that if what was discovered
was a nuisance, it did not signify whether it was discovered by proper or
improper means. He thought tint the finding that the drain was leaking was
a sufficient finding of a nuisance -a mere defective drain might not be a
nuisance.
Bray and Sutton, J. J., agreed.
(For full report sec 72 J. P. 91.)