View report page

38
VESTRY OF ST. JOHN'S, HACKNEY v. HUTTON.
High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division).—November 3rd.
Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76) Sec. 37.—Water
Closet Accommodation—Notice by Sanitary Authority as to insufficiency
—Non-oompliance—Jurisdiction of Magistrate.
Beven foe the Appellants.—The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide
whether the accommodation was necessary or not. That was for the Sanitary
Authority to decide subject to the right of appeal to the County Council. All
that the Magistrate had to decide was whether the requisite notice had been
duly served, and whether it had been complied with or not, and if not, then
what should be the amount of the fine. (He was stopped.)
Carrington for the Respondent.—This Act differs from the Public
Health Act, 1875, in relation to these matters. Under section 36 of the Act of
1875, if the notice is not complied with, the Sanitary Authority can only proceed
to do the work themselves, and recover the expenses from the owner. Therefore,
under that Act, the duties of Justices are ministerial only, and they are bound
by the decision of the Sanitary Authority as to the necessity for the work. But,
under the London Act there is an alternative course open to the Sanitary
Authority if the notice is disobeyed. They may proceed for a fine. In that case
the disobeying the notice is to be regarded as an offence, and the Magistrate
may decide upon the whole matter whether the works are necessary or not.
Here he thought that the proceedings were of a vexatious character from the
first, and therefore dismissed the summons.
Grantham, J.—I am of opinion that the learned Magistrate was bound to
convict the Respondent in the present case. It may be open to question
whether the Legislature were wise in making the Sanitary Authority sole judges
of the sufficiency of the accommodation provided ; but they have made them so,
and therefore the Magistrate in this case ought to have convicted the
Respondent. If an owner is dissatisfied with the decision of the Sanitary
Authority, his only remedy is by appeal to the County Council, whose decision
will be final.
Wright, J.—I agree, but I wish to add that, in my opinion, the magistrate
is not bound to proceed at once to a conviction in all cases immediately the
necessary proof has been given. He may adjourn the case in order to give time
for an appeal to the County Council. He has to decide, of course, whether the
notice has been properly served; whether the person upon whom it has been
served is the owner or occupier of the house; whether the time allowed for