View report page

131
But apart from the question of power to make a binding regulation
requiring the attendance of thee "landlord," I always felt
that it was somewhat unreasonable to call upon the " landlord " toattend
at the office to supply " information," which could be
obtained more readily and more completely on the premises which
it was proposed to register; and, therefore, although in obedience
to the regulation we were compelled to serve a notice upon the
"landlord" requiring him to attend at the office to supply the
" necessary information," I had resolved to advise your Vestry not
to enforce the regulation, viz., by proceedings to recover the penalty
in case of default; but rather to direct the several inspectors to
obtain such information as is really "necessary" 011 the premises.
In the case of a tenement house, where there is no resident
occupier, or " keeper " as he is called in the regulations, it must
be obvious that the " landlord," who might also be the " owner "
of many such houses, would be unable to supply some of the
required particulars, as for instance :—
(a) The manner of use of each room ; and
(b) The number, age, and sex of the occupants of each
room used for sleeping.
I was not greatly concerned, therefore, at the magistrate's
decision, especially when I found, as the result of visitation
of many hundred houses by the inspectors, that there is little,
if any, overcrowding in Kensington.
Still some modification of the regulation appeared necessary
to get over the technical difficulty raised, and communications
having passed with the Local Government Board, a new
Queen's Bench Division, April 6th, 1886—Roots (Appellant) v. Beaumont
(Respondent).—Respondent was charged with infringing bye-laws of the Local
Board of B—, in not attending to state the particulars of her lodging-house.
The bye-law required such particulars to be given by occupiers of all houses let
in lodgings, or occupied by members of more than one family. She was tenant,
and sublet the unfurnished rooms to one family, and occupied the rest of the
house herself. The Justices held that lodging-house meant a house let in lodgings
to more than one family, and if it was not, it was an unreasonable bye-law,
and asked the Court whether this was correct. Held—the Justices were wrong,
and that where part of the house was let to one family, and the landlady occupied
the rest, this was a lodging-house, and there was nothing unreasonable in
the bye-law.—(Justice of the Peace, April 17, 1886, No. 50, p. 241).