View report page

33
Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919.
During the year 35 complaints have been received, investigated
and dealt with. In every case where the complaint has been well founded,
old drains have been sought for, and poisons laid down; while once
a year more general tactics are adopted by way of laying poisons in
certain places, particularly the sewers.
Railway Companies and Sanitary Control.
During the year the question of the control of sanitary works on
railway companies' property was again the subject of litigation. The
Metropolitan Railway was found to have carried out drainage work
at Swiss Cottage Station without giving notice and without depositing
plans and particulars, and the work was found to have been done in
such a manner as to contravene the by-laws of the London County
Council.
On 22nd June, 1927, the Marylebone Police Court Magistrate
gave a considered decision.
The general question involved was whether the Borough Council
could enforce against the railway company the whole of the jurisdiction
and control in sanitary matters conferred upon them by the Metropolis
Management Acts; or whether the company was exempt from such
control by reason of its private Act, the Metropolitan and St. John's
Wood Railway Act, 1864, under which the railway was constructed.
On behalf of the Borough Council it was contended that a protecting
clause in the company's private Act made it clear that—
Nothing in this Act shall extend to prejudice, diminish, alter,
or take away any of the rights, powers, or authorities vested, or to
be vested, in the said board or vestries, or any of them or their
successors, but all such rights, etc., shall be as valid and effectual
as if this Act had not been passed.
The Magistrate said that he was satisfied that there was an inconsistency
between the powers of the Hampstead Borough Council under
the Metropolis Management Acts and those of the Metropolitan Railway
Company under their private Act. The powers of the company
must therefore prevail; and, that being so, there was no liability on
the company to deposit plans, etc., of the alteration to their own drains
at Swiss Cottage, or otherwise to comply with the London County
Council by-laws.
As to the protecting clause referred to, the Magistrate said that
its meaning was obviously confined to the substituted works over which