Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green]
This page requires JavaScript
2
Upon the hearing of the summons, it was proved that in 1886
and 1887 the Metropolitan Board of Works acquired land on the
north side of Green Street, then covered with buildings, for the
purpose of widening the street, and the street was widened
accordingly, thrown open to the public, and handed over to the
Respondents for the purpose of control, under the provisions of
the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Act, 1883 (46 and 47
Victoria, chapter 178).
The Appellant was lessee, under the Metropolitan Board of
Works, of eleven shops built by him under an agreement with the
Board on land on the north side of Green street, being a portion
of the surplus land acquired by them for widening the street.
Against the fronts of the shops the Appellant had erected pilasters
which projected into the street beyond the general building line
to the extent of nine inches of the footway of the street. The
Respondents thereupon passed a resolution declaring these pilasters
in their judgment inconvenient and incommodious to passengers
along the footway, and a notice was served on the applicant
requiring him forthwith to remove the pilasters to the satisfaction
of the Respondents, but ho did not comply with the notice. The
Respondents thereupon instituted these proceedings before a
Magistrate to enforce the penalties imposed in respect of such
default, by section 72 of the above-mentioned Act. The Applicant
contended, amongst other things, that this section was impliedly
repealed by the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855 (18 and
19 Victoria, chapter 120, section 119), and further that the
projections complained of were expressly authorised by the
Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, section 26. The Magistrate
over-ruled both these contentions and convicted the Applicant,
subject to a case. The question reserved for us was whether his
decision was correct in point of law. With regard to the first
point raised it is necessary to examine closely tho provisions of
57 George the Third, chapter 29, section 72, and of 18 and 19
Victoria, chapter 120, seotion 119. Both Acts deal with the
question of the paving and management of streets in the