View report page

75
requirement of a " common lodging-house." Then another thing that has been suggested which was
suggested apparently and made as far as one can seethe principle of the decision in Langdon v. Broadbent
which was a case decided by Mr. Justice Grove and Mr. Justice Lindley reported injustices of the
Peace was that " common lodging-house " meant a lodging-house that is open to allj comers. " It is
evident" aays Mr. Justice Lindley " that the houses were lodging-houses open to all comers and
therefore requiring supervision in order to ensure cleanliness and good order therein. The higher
classes of society will not go to dirty lodging-houses and exercise the necessary supervision for themselves.
The evidence shows that this house did require supervision " and so on. Now that was dealt with in the
judgment in Logsdon v. Booth and it appears to have been dealt with in this way, if that meant as it was
apparently understood to mean. I think it appears by the argument of counsel at any rate in Booth v.
Ferrett that it was understood to mean that it was open to all comers in the sense that the keeper of
such house cannot refuse admission to any applicant—then it has been clearly negatived by this
decision of Logsdon v. Booth. The Lord Chief Justice points out "We see no reason to doubt that
the keeper of a common lodging-house might refuse to admit drunken or disorderly or uncleanly
men or men of known evil reputation thieves and such like or any person whom he chose to
exclude " that is to say that a person who keeps what is admittedly a common lodging-house and
which nobody would doubt to be a common lodging-house and is in point of fact registered may
still if he please exclude persons and he is not under any obligation at common law or by statute
or otherwise to take in everybody. He is not therefore like a common carrier or any person
upon whom an obligation is cast by the law, if he exercises the employment at all to take in
everybody. If it meant that that has been negatived. It has been said that that is not the
necessary requirement of a thing being a common lodging-house but in a rather less wide
sense it has not been I think negatived. On the contrary it has been rather affirmed and it has
been therefore rather explained than negatived. I think it has been explained to mean that
where the place is so open to all comers that the fact of a person being dirty and being
possibly infectious being of a character and appearance that he is likely to disseminate something that is
offensive or dangerous amongst the other people with whom he is associated the fact that it is open to
people of that class and that they are not necessarily excluded by reason of their being of that class is
a necessary element. It is one of the things that is required in order to bring the house within the
mischief of the statute. In that sense it seems again that this institution comes within it. The words
of the Lord Chief Justice which I have just read "We see no reason to doubt that the keeper of a
common lodging-hcuse might refuse to admit drunken or disorderly or uncleanly men of know and evil
reputation thieves and such like " are almost identical with the words found in this case as to what people
are in fact excluded. It is paragraph 9 " Only men are admitted as lodgers. Men who are drunk
and disorderly or who are suspected of being criminals or who are verminous are not admitted. Save as
aforesaid all comers (being men) are admitted upon pay.nent to the said new block." The people
therefore who are excluded are described almost in identical words with what the Lord Chief Justice
says are people who might be excluded in a common lodging-house. Consequently and so far as this
requirement of a common lodging-house is concerned the present institution seems to come within it
that is to say it is in fact open to people of a class who are likely to be dangerous to the people with
whom they associate and likely to bring the institution into the category of one coming within the
mischief of this Aet of Parliament. 1 think therefore that that requirement is met.
Then there remains one point only and that is the one which I think Mr. Daldy has principally
dwelt upon. It has been suggested that a common " lodging-house" means a place where people live in
common and in this particular case the definition of the law officers of the Crown who were filling that
position at the time or shortly after this Act of Parliament was passed and quoted and it appears to be
assented to "We know of no better description of a common lodging-house than that given by the then
law officers Sir Alexander Cockburn and Sir W. Page Wood to the effect that common lodging-house was
that class of lodging-house in which persons of the poorer class are received for short periods."
" Short periods " was afterwards explained by them but I do not think anything particular turns
upon that—" and although strangers to one another are allowed to inhabit one common room."
The Lord Chief Justice goes on to say "If this be the proper description of a common lodginghouse
as we think it is we cannot see in what material respect it differs from the Respondent's
shelter. We must take that because it is adopted by the Court as being a proper description
at any rate of a common lodging-house. What does that mean "although strangers to one
another are allowed to inhabit one common room." Mr. Daldy says "inhabit" necessarily means
sleeping and that it means sleeping in the same room. It must be remembered in this case of
Logsdon v. Booth that the people did sleep in one common room and it was not necessary for the
learned judges there to consider whether that was an essential element or not but there is a previous
passage in the Judgment to this effect " If large numbers of the most wretched class are sleeping in
common rooms insanitary conditions are in the absence of inspection supervision and control not unlikely
to arise and it was the object of the law to secure that inspection supervision and control." I do not
think that it is necessary for us (I am not anxious to lay down the principle) to say whether or not
sleeping in the same bedroom is an essential to making it a common lodging-house. There is of course
this decision of Langdon v. Broadbent to which I referred before in which the Court refused to send
back the case to the magistrates to have it re-stated and made clear as to whether or not in that case
the people did sleep in the same bedroom. Therefore there is some authority for saying that it is not
necessary that they should do so. On the other hand it is possible to say that in Logsdon v. Booth the
judges dissented from that. I am not quite clear myself that they did and I do not think that it is
necessary for us to lay down any definite rule in the present case and I am not anxious to do so because
each case must depend so very much on its own circumstances. I think this much is necessary that in
order to make it a common lodging-house the people of the character who are admitted to it which I have
dealt with must be allowed so to associate with each other as to make the danger of these insanitary
conditions likely to arise and likely to spread. If that is the test and I think myself that it is an
important test in the matter then I think we are bound to say that the present institution
before us comfs within it. The people do associate with each other in a way entirely within
the mischief against which the Act of Parliament provides. Their living rooms are all in
common and their sleeping rooms or apartments whichever they are called are only partially
separated. These cubicle arrangements seem to me to be not very much more than curtains dividing
the beds. They are apparently so divided for the purpose of decency and not for the purpose of preventing
infection spreading nor would they in point of fact have that effect. They are no more than
screens. Taking that view of these facts I think we are bound to say that applying what appear to be
the principles laid down in Logsdon v. Booth this institution is also a common lodging-house as the other
institution of the Salvation Army was. My difficulty and my reason for going into it at length is that
which I began by stating namely that this is an institution of a somewhat superior class. There are
somewhat better arrangements made for the inmates than were made in the other case and there is a
higher sum charged. The charge is here not above the charge that is made as found in the case in
some common lodging-houses but it is rather above the average. Further there are regulations made
by the people who carry on the establishment the trustees or whatever they are called which are intended
to have the same effect as the regulations under the Act of Parliament but I think it is impossible to