View report page

100
"members, and its premises comprised the ordinary accommodation of a
"West End Club. There were two dining rooms for the general use of
"members, and there were also private dining rooms which might be
"engaged by members without extra payment for special occasions.
"There were five bedrooms for the use of members, four of which might
"be hired by members respectively for a week only at one time, and one
"of which might (at the discretion of the Committee) be hired by a
"member for three, six, or nine months at one time. The use of the
"bedrooms was in these and other respects subject to the rules of the
Club and the regulations of the Committee thereunder. There were
"eight other bedrooms for the use of the staff. The Club was open
"during particular hours according to the rules. The food was bought
"by the Committee and sold to members. In the basement there were
"several covered-in cooking ranges, a large roasting grate, and a vertical
"boiler, with furnace attached. The smoke from these various arrange"ments
discharged into the flue, which was the chimney complained of.
The principal part of the smoke emitted from the flue originated in the
"furnace and boiler, which were used for heating the premises. It was
"submitted by the respondent that the chimney was the chimney of a
"private dwelling-house, within Section 24 (b), and was therefore not liable
"to be dealt with under the Act. The appellant contended that 'private
"dwelling-house' meant a family residence or house, and that the use of
"the premises excluded them from the exemption of the Section. The
"Magistrate found as a fact that the chimney sent forth black smoke in
"such quantity as to be a nuisance, but he held, on the construction of
"the Section, that the chimney was the chimney of a private dwelling"house,
and that the premises as used by the Club were a private
"dwelling-house within the meaning of the Section, and he dismissed
"the summons.
"The Court held, allowing the appeal, that a club was not a private
"dwelling-house within the meaning of the Public Health (London)
"Act, 1891, Section 24 (b)."
Smoke nuisances were reported at 57 premises during 1903. The number
of observations recorded in relation to them amounted to 1,306, as against
3,536 noted at 66 places in 1902. In no case was the evidence sufficient to
justify the institution of legal proceedings for abatement of smoke nuisance.
Fewer complaints are being received, and it is evident that the summonses
taken out against offenders in the previous year have acted as a deterrent.
The improvement existing is due, in a large measure, to the partial
substitution in restaurants of coke for soft bituminous coal.
Again, considerable advance has been made in inducing users of furnaces to
so arrange the fuel combustion as to reduce the evil to a minimum.