View report page

121
Gamble v. Jordan.
11 L.G.R. 989.
(Before Phillimore, Banks, and Avory J.J.)
Rag Flock.
Section I, sub-section (1) of the Rag Flock Act, 1911, imposes a penalty on
any person having in his possession flock intended to be used for "making
bedding which does not conform to the standard of cleanliness prescribed by
Regulations made by the Local Government Board in pursuance of the Act.
A mattress maker—a workman in the employ of bedding manufacturers—
had undertaken, in his spare time and at his own house, to "re-make" a
mattress, the property of a relative, for the sum of one shilling. He removed
the flock, which did not conform to the required standard of cleanliness, from
the cover of the mattress and put the same flock back again into the cover
without any addition. This re-stuffing was necessary to secure a more even
distribution of the flock in the mattress and add to its comfort.
Held, that the re-making or re-stuffing of the mattress with the same flock,
which had been taken out of it and put back again without addition, was not
the "making " of an article of bedding within the meaning of Section 1, subsection
(1) and that the Act had not been contravened.
Kershaw v. Smith & Co., Limited.
11 L.G.R. 519.
(Before Ridley, Pickford and Avory J.J.)
Combined Drainage.
In 1884 a builder obtained an order of a Vestry for, and their sanction to
plans for a combined system of drainage of a row of houses, but laid the drains
in contravention of the approved plans. In 1912 the local authority, successors
of the Vestry, discovered the builder's default, and served him with a notice
under section 83 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, requiring him to
alter the drains in conformity with the order of the Vestry, and on his refusal
to comply with it entered on the premises and reconstructed the whole system
of combined drainage in accordance with the plan as originally approved.
This reconstruction was completed on April 4th, 1912. In 1887 the builder
had sold one of the houses, which was subsequently assigned to the respondents
without notice that the drainage system contravened the approved plan. On
April 10th, 1912, the local authority served the respondents with a notice,
under section 85 of the Act of 1855 to remedy a nuisance caused by the
condition of the drainage under their house.
The respondents did not comply, and an information against them for failing
to do so was dismissed by the magistrate on the ground that the drainage
system carried out by the builder had never been approved by the Vestry, and
that inasmuch as the pipe under the respondents' house drained more than one
house it was a sewer and not a drain, and therefore the respondents were not
liable to repair it.