View report page

191
In the two foregoing cases all the works required to be done were
limited to the private property of one owner, and there would not
therefore appear to be any hardship or injustice in requiring him to
relay a drain wholly on his property and essential to him for the
drainage of his houses, even though it may at the same time have
served to convey the drainage of other houses also. In the following
case the works executed were more extensive:—
(3) Jackson v. Wimbledon Urban District Council.
In this case sixteen houses in a crescent were owned by three
persons. Twelve of the houses (Nos. 51 to 73) by Mr. Jackson, three
of the houses (Nos. 75 to 79) by Mrs. E., and the last house (No. 81)
by Mr. H.
The drainage of Mr. H.'s house, No. 81, starting from point D,
passed through the back gardens of Mrs. E.'s property, receiving the
drainage of Mrs. E.'s houses, and entered a chamber on Mrs. E.'s
premises at B. This chamber also received the drainage of all
Mr. Jackson's houses conveyed through his back gardens from the
point C. From the chamber B the sewage from the whole sixteen
houses was conveyed by the common pipe B A into the public sewer
in the road, the whole of the drainage being on private property.