View report page

120
Rex v. Local Government Board, ex parte Arlidge.
11 L.G.R. 1186.
(Before Vaughan Williams, Buckley, and Hamilton, L.J.J.)
Housing and Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909.—Appeal to Local
Government Board.
On an appeal by the owner to the Local Government Board, under theHousing
and Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909, against the refusal of the local
authority to determine a closing order, the appellant has a right to be heard
and see the inspector's report on the public local enquiry held by him, and it
is not competent to the Board to determine the question before them as to
whether or not the closing order should be confirmed or discharged solely upon
the report of the inspector who held the public local enquiry provided for by
Section 39, sub-section 1 (b), and upon the perusal of the written statements
by the parties.
So held on appeal, Hamilton L.J. dissenting.
Decision of Divisional Court (reported [1913] 1 K.B. 453 ; 11 L.G.R. 242;
82 L.J.K.B. 313) reversed.
Ross v. Helm.
(Before Lord Alverstone C.J., and Channell and Avery J.J.)
Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. — Proof of Inspector's appointment.
An inspector appointed by a county council, who was described in the
information by his own name and as such inspector, was beginning to give
evidence in a prosecution under Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act,
1875, when the chairman of the Bench asked him his name. He gave his
name, adding "an inspector under ihe Food and Drugs Act." He was not
cross-examined as to this statement, but upon his case being closed, objection
was taken that he had not produced his appointment as inspector. The
justices were of opinion that he should have produced it, and having failed to
do so, could not be allowed, after having closed his case to put in further
evidence, and they dismissed the summons.
Held that the objection should not have been allowed since the inspector
had given evidence which prima facie proved that he was an inspector, and in
the absence of cross-examination on the point, production of the document
appointing him was unnecessary.
Per Channell J. and Avery J. Where the charge is one of selling to the
prejudice of the purchaser under Section 6 of the Act, justices have the same
jurisdiction to deal with the case whether the prosecutor be an inspector or a
private individual. Therefore there was no need to prove that the prosecutor
was an inspector at all.