View report page

68
"it is an ordinary six-roomed house with a common staircase, each pair
"of rooms being occupied by a separate family, and it is within the
"words, ' house occupied by members of more than one family.' The
"Magistrate has found that, and whether it is a question of degree or a
"question of fact, makes no difference. He has found it as a fact, and if
"there was evidence upon which he could so find it, we should not upset
"it. It was conceded that in the case of Weatheritt v. Cantlay a
"contrary view was taken. It seems from that case that the test which
"the Magistrate has applied here is the right test. In that case there
"were a number of floors containing separate tenements which might be
"defined to be separate houses, and they did not cease to be separate
"houses because they were under one common roof. I there used the
"expression, which I repeat, that if that were not the true test, all
"blocks of buildings occupied as flats would be places occupied by more
"than one family, and would come within the purview of the Section.
"I think that is an observation which is entitled to weight. I think that
"here the Magistrate was perfectly entitled to come to the conclusion
"that this is a house within Section 94 of the Act."
"Mr. Justice Wills : I am of the same opinion. I think this is a
"house, or the Act of Parliament would be of no use."
"Mr. Justice Channell: I agree on the ground that it is a question
"of fact. I have a little doubt whether the separate tenements were
"separate houses, but I think that, upon the facts as found, the
"Magistrate was right."