View report page

33
cases. Although legal sanctions are the ultimate means of securing
compliance with the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and the Regulations
made thereunder, it is by no means the sole method of preventing
danger to health from unsound food. The food industry is cognizant
of its duties to the public to a high degree and where complaints
have been made regarding foods, the manufacturers and vendors have
done their utmost to eradicate the cause of complaint. But the penal
nature of food and drugs law with its absolute liability on the vendor
is often a point of controversy.
"LONDON HOUSING"
A short resume of the history of housing administration in London
might be of interest to readers of the Medical Officer of Health's
Annual Report particularly having regard to the reconstruction of
London Government, and also because of the misconception that
housing problems with emphasis on overcrowding, slum clearance
and compulsory acquisition are modern tendencies. That these
difficulties are of long standing cannot be doubted and the most
recent report on the standards of housing of a large section of the
population of London would seem to indicate that little has been
done to remedy the evils of the mid-nineteenth century.
Case law had decided quite early in sanitary history that a
nuisance was at one time created whenever a house owner divided a
dwelling into separate tenements. One owner in Hereford was required
to plead to an indictment for so doing, based on the frequency of
such an action in London. It was not very effective however.
..By.35.Eliz. 1 ch.6. 1593, Statute of Elizabeth, it was decreed
that each cottage was to have at least 4 acres of land attached
except where land was expensive; thus where space about houses
was most needed, the statute did not apply, e.g. in London Town.
Another temporary Act — 35 Eliz. 1 ch.7 (1593) was passed "for
reforming great mischiefs and inconveniences which daily grow and
increase by pestering houses with divers families and the harbouring
of inmates which practice had been productive of great infection
and sickness*.
The leading case of King v. Pedley (1834) laid down the rule
that an owner who erected a building which was a nuisance or the
occupation of which was likely to cause a nuisance and he so let
it, was liable on indictment for the nuisance so caused.