View report page

42
NUISANCES.
In Table IX. is shown the total number of nuisances reported and dealt with
during the year, with an analysis of the same.
From this Table it will be seen that the total number of nuisances of all
kinds reported during the year was 1,045. Of this number 266 were smoke
nuisances, 629 had reference to dilapidations or structural defects, 75 were in
respect of insanitary barges, 54 were accumulations of offensive matter, and
29 were infringements of the Bye-laws of the Port Sanitary Authority relating
to Offensive Cargoes. In addition there were complaints of certain foul and
offensive lighters, public conveniences, and miscellaneous nuisances.
Smoke Nuisances.
Close attention has been given to this class of nuisance, and, as stated, 266
complaints have been dealt with during the year.
Legal proceedings were taken in five cases,which are detailed in Appendix H.
Convictions were obtained in four cases, the defendant in one case, namely, that
of the steam tug " Richmond," gave notice of appeal, and the fifth case was
adjourned pending the result of the appeal.
The case of the "Richmond" is important, and raised the whole question
of the power of the Port Sanitary Authority to take action against the owners
of steam vessels, under Section 24 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
The case was heard by the Lord Mayor, sitting at the Mansion House
Justice Room, on 24th September. The owners of the tug being summoned
for that on the 24tb August, 1903, between Custom House and Southwark
Bridge, on the North side of the River Thames in the said City and within the
Port of London, upon a certain vessel, to wit, the s.s. " Richmond," of London,
95,485, the following nuisance existed, namely, a chimney (not being the
chimney of a private dwelling-house) sending forth black smoke in such a
quantity as to be a nuisance, and that the defendant being the Owner of the
said vessel had made default in complying with the requisitions of a Notice,
dated 25th day of April, 1903, served upon him under Section 24 of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requiring him to abate the nuisance and
to execute such works and to do such things as might be necessary for that
purpose, contrary to the Statute.
It was contended by the defendant—
(1) That Section 24 of the said Public Health (London) Act, 1891,
was inapplicable to a steam tug such as the "Richmond," while plying to
and fro on the River Thames.