View report page

57
by both the tenants, but the tenant of the first floor was alone entitled to use
the staircase. There was no door of division between the tenements, but the door
of every room had a lock and key. The premises were rated in one assessment in
Mr. Filer's name at the sum of £13 per annum, and the landlord compounded for
the said rate. It was contended by us that it was a house which was let in lodgings
or occupied by members of more than one family within the meaning of the said
bye-laws. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the ground floor and
the first floor were distinct houses or tenements, each separately occupied by one
family, and were within the decision of the High Court of Justice—Weatheritt v.
Canlly—and that therefore the bye-laws did not apply.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Counsel who represented the Borough was
not even called upon to reply.
(2) GALINSKY'S CASE.
Mrs. Galinsky, the owner of 166, Stepney Green, was summoned for failing to
comply with Bye-law 14, which compels the owners to cleanse the premises at least
once a year.
The case was dismissed by Mr. Mead at the Thames Police Court.
In stating his case for the High Court Mr. Mead said : —
" 1 am of opinion that so much of the first clause of bye-law 14 as requires the
annual cleansing by the landlord is invalid on the following grounds:—(a) Being
ultra vires. (b) Being repugnant to the laws of England, (c) Being repugnant to
the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. (d) Being unreasonable.
I therefore dismiss the summons.
" Ground A. I consider that section 94 (d and e) of the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891, did not empower the Borough Council to cast an obligation upon
a ' landlord ' which did not already exist at common law or by statute, but merely
entitled them to regulate the duties of persons already responsible by requiring, e.g.,
periodical performances. So far as (e) of the above section is concerned, I think
that ' stated times' mean ' stated intervals,' and not a particular week in the year.
The form of section 1 (3) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (1 Ed. 7, c. 22),
fortifies me in my opinion. ' All outside walls shall be limewashed once at least
every fourteen months, to date from the time they were last limewashed.'
(B) The bye- law is repugnant to the laws of England because, in the absence
of express covenants, there is no obligation upon a reversioner even to repair, much
less to cleanse, any premises which have been let to a tenant for any term, at any