London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Fulham 1895

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham]

This page requires JavaScript

59
One of the cases in the above list, that of the Vestry
Solomon, requires special mention, as the Vestry annealep
against the decision of the Magistrate.
The respondent was served with a notice under Section
??? (2) of the Public Health Act,
requiring him to make
??? alterations in a water-closet on premises of which he
??? the owner. By Section 41 (3) "any person who thinks
himself aggrieved by any notice or act of a Sanitary
Authority under that Section in relation to any water-closet
??? appeal to the County Council, whose decision shall be
???"
The work not having been done complaint was made to
??? Magistrate by the Vestry, who contended that he had
??? jurisdiction to enquire into the validity of the notice,
??? that as the notice had been duly served, the work
??? not been done, and the owner had not appealed to the
??? Council, he was compelled to convict and fine the
??? by the provisions of Section 41 (2).
The Magistrate decided that he had jurisdiction to
??? into the validity of the notice ; and that the
??? in the notice not being in accordance with the
???y-laws of the Countv Council, were void under Section
??? of the Public Health Act, and dismissed the summons
??? costs.
Against this decision the Vestry appealed, contending
??? that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enquire into
??? validity of the notice—("Vestry of St. James, Clerken???,
v. Fearey, 24 Q. B. D. 703")—and secondly, that
??? if the Magistrate had that power the notice was good,
??? been made under Section 41 (2), and not under the
???-lavvs of the Countv Council, which had no application to
J '
???case of this kind.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the
???agistrate was right in deciding that the notice given by the
vestry was void under Section 39 the Public Health
Act, as not being in accordance with the By-laws made
under that Section.
It will be noticed that, with one exception, all the
???y-laws made by the County Council with respect
???ater-closets under Section 39 of the Public Health Act,

Continued from previous page...

Defendant.Offence.Result.
L. Mason, 12, Campbell streetOvercrowdingOrder to abate fort with, 3s. costs
E. LowmanNewly erecting 4 houses, 55, 57, 59 and 61,Claxton Grove, without a sufficient ashpit and water-closet furnished with proper water supply. Four summonses.Fined £2 and 2s. cost in each case
Permitting 55, 57, 59 and 61, Claxton Grove, to be occupied without having obtained a certificate that the houses have proper and sufficient water supply. Four summonses.Fined 10s. and 2s costs in each case
Owner, 8 and 10, Campbell streetDrains in a state of nuisance.Order work to be done, £2 2s. costs
Owner, 56, Yeldham roadInsanitary premisesDismissed
Owner, 8, Claybrook roadFailing to comply with Vestry's notice to relay drainOrder 14 days, £1 1s. costs
OwnerInsanitary premisesOrder 14 days, 6s. costs
Owner, 16b, Langford roadPremises in a state of nuisanceOrder work to be done in 14 days, 2s. costs
Owner, 8, Jarvis roadFailing to comply with Vestry's notice to abate nuisance.Order work to be done in 7 days, 6s. costs
Owner, 83, Yeldham roadInsanitary premisesOrder 14 days, 5s. costs
Owner, 112, Bayonne roadDittoDitto