View report page

181
§ 6. LEGAL DECISIONS.
EXTRACT FROM ANNUAL REPORT OF MEDICAL OFFICER
OF HEALTH,
METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF SOUTH WARE FOR 1909.
Griffiths v. Weathbritt (Southwark Borough Council).
Provision of a water supply to the upper storeys of a house under Section 78.
of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1997.
Re 18, Olney Street.
A summons in this case was issued at the express instructions of the Public
Health Committee after some of the members had visited the premises.
The proceedings before the magistrate on the 17th December, 1909, were
taken under Section 48 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and Section
78 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1907, to require
provision of a proper and sufficient water supply to the upper floor of
18, Olney Street.
The premises are technically a tenemented house, occupied by two separate
families, the family without a supply of water being on the top floor. There
are three storeys, the lowest one being a half.basement. The existing water
supply is from two taps, one in the yard and the other in a washhouse in the
yard.
At the hearing at the Lambeth Police Court the magistrate (Mr. Chapman)
made an order on the owner, who duly appeared, to provide the supply of
water as asked for.
The owner immediately appealed to the Quarter Sessions.
At the hearing at the Sessions, on January 7th, 1910, the Bench unanimously
dismissed the appeal, and upheld the magistrate's order, with costs.
Evidence was given, on behalf of the Borough Council, by Dr. Hamer, one
of the London County Council's medical officers, and Dr. Millson, Medical
Officer of Health for Southwark, to the effect that the occupants of the top
floor rooms had to come down twenty.five steps to fetch up their water, and it
then had to be stored in a bucket in the room in which persons lived and slept.
On examination the water was found to be polluted by bird manure, seeds
and other substances. Owing to the difficulty of carrying up the water it was
found that the family used only three bucketfuls a day for all purposes, when
they should have used at least eighteen bucketfuls, which is the acknowledged
quantity required for such a family. It was contended, therefore, that the
supply of water, owing to the difficulty of carrying it upstairs, was so restricted
as to be insufficient for the maintenance of the health of the family.
Mr. Campion appeared for the Appellant and Mr. Frank Dodd for the
Borough Council.