View report page

34
With respect to No. 88, Bevenden Street, the summons was taken out by
Inspector Lear in consequence of non-compliance with a notice in respect to a
Combined drain, which was in a defective condition. It was contended that the same
was a sewer, and therefore reparable by the Council. The Council, however, was in
possession of a complete record relating to the construction of the drain, and when
the case came into Court the owner consented to do the necessary work. The
summons was thereupon withdrawn on the owner paying 3s., the cost thereof.
The proceedings in respect to 118, Goldsmith Row, were taken on account of the
leaky condition of the roof of the house. A second summons had to be taken out by
Inspector Firth before the order made by the magistrate was complied with.
The proceedings as to No. 128A, Hoxton Street, are dealt with later. With
regard to the Mews in Mintern Street, complaints were received as to the smells
emanating from the dung receptacle provided for the use of the stables situate in the
Mews. Intimation notices were served upon the responsible parties, but without
effect. It was thereupon decided to take steps under the bylaws made by the
London County Council under Section 39 (1) of the Public (London) Act, 1891.
Section 26 of these bylaws provides that the occupier of any premises, shall once at
least in every week cause every receptacle for dung belonging to such premises to be
emptied and thoroughly cleansed. The breach of the bylaws was proved but the
magistrate did not think it was, in any of the cases, necessary to inflict any penalty,
nor to allow costs to the Borough Council. It appears that the summonses which
were taken out by Inspector Langstone, referred to a period which included a bank
holiday, a time when it would have been difficult, under any circumstances, to have
got the dung removed.
In the case of No. 41, St. John's Eoad, premises let as workshops, the summons
was taken out by Inspector Langstone. The waterclosets were without water
supply, the premises generally were dirty and delapidated, and the main roof
was very defective, and leaked badly, rendering the walls and flooring very
damp. The owner consented to an order being made by the magistrate for the
abatement of the nuisance existing in connection with the premises, and subsequently
closed them.
The steps taken in respect to the seven houses in Watson's Place, so far as they
relate to the year 1902, are referred to in my report for that year. At the end of the
year the orders made by the magistrate had not been complied with. The 3 months
allowed by the magistrate for the work to be carried out in having elapsed, and
nothing of a satisfactory character having been done the owner was again summoned
before the magistrate by the late Inspector Quelch, and was, as stated above, fined
£5, with costs in each case for disobedience of the magistrate's orders. It was then
thought advisable to commence de novo, and fresh statutory notices were served
upon the owner for non-compliance with which he was again summoned, but when
the cases came before the magistrate, it appeared that negotiations were in progress for
the transfer of the property to another owner, it being stated that the property had