View report page

ings in court. During the year 122 definite observations were
made, and 14 notices of offence given. One prosecution was taken
in connection with smoke nuisance at a factory within the borough.
This was withdrawn as a result of negotiations between the
authority and the owners, who promised to effect many major
improvements in the boiler plant. This work was carried out and
since then there have been no further complaints.
Considerable attention was devoted during the year to a
large engineering works in the Stratford area which was referred
to in the last report.
About ten steam raising plants were adapted for the use of
coke fuel, and greater attention was paid to the various annealing
and hardening furnaces.
A sustained effort was made to reduce emissions of smoke
from railway locomotives to the practicable minimum, whilst
engaged in working under load and on starting up after repair,
or on standing at the repair works. Numerous observations were
taken and the results, with engine numbers and times, have been
reported to the District Locomotive Running Superintendent.
The legal position in regard to railway locomotives is not
free from difficulty. The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act,
1845, provides that every locomotive-steam engine used on a railway
must be constructed on the principle of consuming, and so
as to consume, its own smoke. The Regulations of Railways
Act, 1868, provides that if the engine is so constructed as to
consume its own smoke, but fails to do so through any fault of
the company or of any of their servants, the company shall be
deemed guilty of an offence against the earlier Act.
The enforcement of these clauses is not, however, a statutory
duty of the local authority, and all proceedings must be instituted
by an informer, to whom half of any penalty may be paid. Usually
when officers of the department institute proceedings under
authority of the Local Government Act, 1933, the informations are
so drafted as to incorporate the clause "acting for and on behalf
of the Council of the County Borough of West Ham." This
cannot be done when acting as informer—see Lake v. Smith, 1911
(76 J.P. 71)—nor apparently may the Council authorise an officer
to act as informer on their behalf. The only satisfactory method
appears to be for the informer to pay over to the borough fund
332