View report page

40
The summons in respect to No. 133, Curtain Road was taken out against the
owner by Inspector Jordan for non-compliance with a statutory notice requiring
the abatement of a nuisance owing to the defective condition of the drains.
As the work was practically finished when the case came on for hearing, the
Council made an offer to the owner to withdraw the summons on payment of
one guinea costs. This offer, however, was refused by the owner. The case
was heard, and he was convicted with the fine and costs above mentioned.
The summons in respect to the house in Crondall Street was taken against
the owner by Inspector Langstone for failure to comply with a statutory notice
requiring the abatement of a nuisance arising through the defective state of the
roof and of the drains. It was withdrawn on payment of the Council's costs,
the necessary work having been completed before the case was heard by the
magistrate.
The summons as regards the house in Essex Street was taken against the
owner by Inspector Pearson for non-compliance with a statutory notice to abate
a nuisance in connection with a water-closet. It was withdrawn as the nuisance
was abated before it came on for hearing.
The summons in respect to the house in Felton Street, which was to
secure the provision of a proper dust receptacle, was withdrawn, as the
receptacle was provided before the case came into court.
As regards the house in Flower and Dean Street, which is not in Shoreditch,
this was the place of residence given by a man who was convicted for selling
pieces of decomposing poultry. This case is mentioned later in this report
(p. 53).
The summons in respect to No. 5, Gifford Street was taken by Inspector
Pearson against the owner for not complying with a statutory notice requiring
the provision of sufficient water-closet accommodation for the people resident
in the house. The bye-laws of the London County Council, under the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, lay down a proportion of one water-closet for every
12 persons in houses occupied by members of more than one family. The
Act also requires that dwelling houses shall have sufficient accommodation of
the nature mentioned. In this particular case there were 25 persons in the house
and only one w.c. for their use. The defendant was convicted, and ordered to
pay the Council's costs.
The summons in respect to No. 144, Goldsmith Row was taken against the
owner by Inspector Firth for not complying with the requirements of a statutory
notice to abate a nuisance arising from a water-closet without a proper and
sufficient flush.