View report page

125
whole district there are 33 licensed cowhouses, of which 18 are in
the parish of Fulham and 15 in the parish of Hammersmith. In
the third quarter of last year I inspected the whole of the licensed
cowhouses then existing. At that time there were 19 in the
parish of Fulham and 18 in the parish of Hammersmith. In the
month of September 35 notices were received of intention on the
part of persons to apply for licenses at the meeting of the
Justices at Kensington Sessions, to be held on October 21st.
Nineteen of the notices were for the licensing of premises in the
parish of Fulham, and 16 were for the licensing of premises in
the parish of Hammersmith. The other two cowkeepers in the
Parish of Hammersmith had given up cowkeeping, and, therefore,
did not apply. Of the total (35) cowhouses inspected by myself,
33 were found not to be in a satisfactory condition. Your Board
forwarded notices to the applicants as to what you considered was
necessary to put the premises in a proper sanitary condition, and
gave formal notice to the 32 applicants that you would appear
before the Justices at Kensington Sessions on October the 21st,
and oppose their licenses being granted unless the requirements
as stated in the notice of your Board were complied with by
October 18th. Your Board also gave notice to one applicant,
whose premises were situated at 100, Wharf Road, that you
would unconditionally oppose the application for the renewal of
the license, on the grounds that for a period of seven years,
the premises had been and were at that time in a most insanitary
and offensive condition, that the applicant had during a part of
the previous year, and was at that time keeping 32 cows upon the
premises, notwithstanding that the license was endorsed for eight
only, and that the premises had been kept in such an offensive
condition as to constitute a public nuisance. On October 21st
your Board instructed me to appear before the Justices at
Kensington Sessions. In 26 cases the whole of your requirements
had been complied with. All of these licenses were
granted without any opposition on the part of your Board. Your
Board opposed the application of John Maguire, of Audley
Cottage, Parson's Green, on the grounds that your notice had not
been obeyed. The applicant said that he would not comply, as
he thought your requirements were unreasonable. The Bench
refused the license. In nine other cases your Board opposed the
applications on the grounds that your requirements had not been
complied with. The Bench ordered that the hearing of the
applications should be adjourned for 14 days to allow the applicants
to comply with your notices. At the adjourned hearing on
November 4th, five of the applicants having complied, your
Board withdrew your opposition, and the licenses were granted.