View report page

18
the whole of the facts, but have not yet issued any summonses in the
matter.
COVER v. ST. GEORGE'S VESTRY.
It will be remembered that this case originally consisted of a
appeal of Messrs. Gover, the owners of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Re???
Red cow Cow Alley; to the Newington Quarter Sessions against a
Alle Order made by the Vestry under the Housing of the Working
Classes Act, 1890, for the demolition of the premises as being i???
such a condition as to be dangerous or injurious to the health of t???
surrounding population.
The Court of Quarter Sessions held that Section 33 of the A???
referred only to inhabited houses, and as these houses were not the
inhabited, an Order for demolition could not be made, and the
accordingly quashed the Order of the Vestry. The Court, however
expressed willingness to state a case for the decision of the High
Court. After considerable difficulty, a case was agreed upon between
the two parties and heard before Justices Ridley and Darling in t???
Queen's Bench Division of the High Court on the 7th November
1899.
The Court decided in favour of the Vestry's contention the
Section 33 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, applie???
to an uninhabited house, but referred the case back to the Court
Quarter Sessions for re-hearing, to determine whether the whole ???
some and what part if any or all of the premises was dangerous ???
injurious to the health of the public or of the inhabitants of the
neighbouring buildings.
The case came on for hearing again at the Newington Session
on the 19th January, 1900, when it was stated by counsel for Mess???
Gover, that they had taken steps to abate nuisances on the premise???
and it was suggested by Mr. Loveland-Loveland, Q.C., Deput???
Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, that the premises should be i???
spected by the Vestry's witnesses, so as to ascertain whether the wo???
done would satisfy the Vestry's requirements. On that occasion???
was stated that the drains had been sealed, and all necessary ste???
taken to abate nuisances. The case was then adjourned to the 16
February.