View report page

167
comply with the requirements of the Infectious Disease (Notification)
Act; the former doubtless from ignorance and inexperience,
the latter presumably from inadvertence, and
thereby laid themselves open to the statutory penalty for
default.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The servant was
sent to the Western Fever Hospital on Thursday, July 30th;
and on the following day notice of the admission w as received
by me from the Asylums Board. The house was visited the
same day, and a careful inspection made by your Vestry's Sanitary
Inspector for the district, as testified by his report which
includes the several defects specified in the report of the sanitary
engineer and surveyor whom "W. 13. E." subsequently
consulted. On Tuesday, August 4th, a notification was received
of the illness of "W. B. E.'s" son. Thereupon, the
inspector again visited the house to obtain customary particulars
of the case for purposes of record. Your Vestry met on
Wednesday, August 5th, and on Thursday, August 6th, (the
day "W. B. E." honoured my department with a visit), a
notice was sent by registered letter to the owner, who, in
acknowledging receipt of the notice on the following day
(Friday, August 7th), stated that the drains had been
"thoroughly well done" in 1884, and that in 1889, when she let
the house furnished, the tradesman gave her a "certificate" to
that effect. She added that she had lived in the house with her
only child until " W. B.' E." entered into possession, and would
not have let the house without putting the drains in order had
she known them, to be defective. "No illness of any sort arising
from bad drainage during these years had occurred" to
her family or her servants.
The "certificate" alluded to was the one shown to
"W. B. E." It is signed by a respectable ironmonger, resident
in the parish, who testifies to the excellence of his own work—
work for which, so far as I am aware, he has no special