View report page

193
In this case Mr. Joseph owned six houses (Nos. 18 to 28) out of
a row of sixteen houses, the remaining ten houses belonging to various
other owners. The drainage of the whole sixteen houses was carried
away to the public sewer in a side street by a common pipe (shown in
the plan A B). Into this common pipe each pair of houses discharged
their drainage by a common pipe (shown in the sketch C D) formed
by the junction of a separate pipe from each of the two adjoining
houses. All the pipes were on private property.
On complaint of nuisance the Wood Green Council required the
owners to relay the whole of the drainage system. Mr. Joseph
objected on the ground that his houses were drained by sewers. The
Council thereupon accepted the objection so far as the common pipes
draining each pair of Mr. Joseph's houses were concerned, and themselves
relaid the said common pipes shown in red between the points
C and D. Subsequently the Council relaid the main common pipe
A to B at a total cost of £132, and sought to recover from Mr. Joseph
the sum of £19, being the share apportioned on him in respect of the
six houses of which he was the owner.
The Court of Appeal, in giving its decision, assumed that the
main pipe A B was, as alleged, a single private drain within Section 19
of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, but held that as each pair
of Mr. Joseph's houses was separated from the single private drain by
an intervening sewer, they could not be said to be, in the words of
Section 19, "connected with a public sewer by a single private drain,"
and therefore that Mr. Joseph was not liable for any apportionment
in respect of work done to the single private drain.
It appears to be quite impossible to reconcile the above decision
with the finding by the same Court in the case of Thompson v. Eccles
Corporation, a position foreshadowed by Counsel, who appeared for
the Wood Green Urban District Council in arguing the latter case.