View report page

200
which he would have to bear if he only possessed one house, is a conclusion
which will not commend itself to the average man.
More complicated systems of drainage could be given and other
points discussed, but enough has been introduced to justify the Council
in agreeing to the suggestion of the Clerk of the Urban District
Council of Wood Green, provided that in the appeal to the House
of Lords it will be competent for the whole question to be authoritatively
settled, and not merely the individual case in which the District
Council is interested.
During the current session of Parliament an attempt to remedy
the confusion surrounding the application of Section 19 is about to be
made in the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill, 1907, presented by
Mr. J. W. Wilson.
Clause 46 of this Bill reads:—"The powers given by Section 19
of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, in relation to two
or more houses belonging to different owners shall extend and apply
to two or more houses belonging to the same owner." The intention
of this clause is obviously directed towards over-riding the position
laid down by the Court of Appeal in both the Wimbledon and Wood
Green cases. Whether it actually does so is a matter of opinion. It
certainly offers the opportunity of further appeals to the Courts.
Fortunately, the provisions of the West Ham Corporation Acts,
1893 and 1898, have relieved the Council of the liability for the cost
of repair of any combined drains of the character shown in the
foregoing plans, but as your Sanitary Officers are frequently asked to
put into force the provisions of the Public Health Acts Amendment
Act, it is extremely desirable that the latter provisions should be
made clear.