View report page

42
The summons in respect to No. 34, Lee Street, was taken against the owner by
Inspector Pearson for non-compliance with a statutory notice, requiring'the remedying
of certain defects in the yard paving and the provision of a dust receptacle. When
the summons came on for hearing, the notice had been complied with.
With regard to No. 5, Loanda Street, it was necessary to obtain a magistrate's
order before the owner would do what was required to make the roof watertight.
In the case of No. 25, Newton Street, this was a tenement house with a workshop
in the rear. The water-closet accommodation was insufficient, in view of the
number of persons resident in the house, there being only one closet for the house
and workshop. A statutory notice was served on the owner in May, and he thereupon
reduced the number of residents in the house in order to comply with the notice.
This meant that half the house was unoccupied. It remained unoccupied until
November, when the owner again re-let it. A summons was taken by Inspector
Langstone, but by the time it came on for hearing the work of constructing an additional
closet was in progress. The case was adjourned, and the summons was subsequently
withdrawn, the necessary sanitary accommodation having been provided.
With regard to 153, St. John's Road, the roof was defective and the premises
generally dilapidated. A summons was taken against the owner by Inspector Langstone
for not complying with a statutory notice requiring the abatement of the
nuisance. It was withdrawn, as the notice had been complied with when the case
came before the magistrate.
The proceedings in the case of No. 87, Wilmer Gardens were taken by Inspector
Pearson for non-compliance with the requirements of a statutory notice relative to
the provision of a dust receptacle, the premises also being in such a state as to constitute
a nuisance. There were two summonses. In the first instance the dust receptacle
having been provided, the summons was withdrawn ; in the second, the magistrate
adjourned the case for the defendant to comply with the notice. When the case
again came before the magistrate, the necessary work had been carried out, and the
defendant was not fined, but ordered to pay the costs, as stated.
The proceedings in respect of No. 7, Pearson Street, were the result of repeated
complaints as to the emission of black smoke from the chimney of the bakehouse
on the premises. Every effort was made by the sanitary officers to induce the
proprietor of the bakehouse to take the necessary precautions to prevent the occurrence
of the nuisance, but without effect. In the end, proceedings had to be taken.
In two instances proceedings were instituted against persons for breaking the
law relating to unsound food. Brief particulars as to these cases are given later in
the report (page 56).