View report page

60
to a closet in Cobden Buildings, contrary to the
Byelaws under the Public Health Act. The summoils
was dismissed, the magistrate holding that
the pan in question was in conformity with the
Byelaws. The Solicitors were then authorised to
carry the case to a superior Court, on the point
that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide
whether the pan complied with the Byela ws or not,
but that if the defendants were dissatisfied with
the Vestry's decision, the proper appeal lay to the
County Council. The case was afterwards abandoned,
inasmuch as no order of the Vestry had
been served upon the Company before the proceedings
were taken, and therefore no opportunity
of appealing to the Council had been given
them, and therefore the point required to be
decidedcouldnot be convenientlyraiseduponthecase.
The question, however, soon arose again, for during
the reconstruction of the premises 65, Turnmill
Street, lately known as Garfield Buildings, the
builder fitted four new cottage basins and traps in
the water closets which, in the opinion of the
Vestry, did not comply with the Byelaws. Notice
was therefore given to the builder to alter and
amend the closets so fixed. The builder appealed
to the Council, and produced a model of the pans
and traps in question, and maintained that they
complied with the Byelaws. This was contested
by the Vestry, and after hearing the parties, the
Council dismissed the appeal.
Rag merchant's, 75, Farringdon Road.—The
Vestry, in September, received and considered a
letter from the Rev. E. Canney and nine other
ratepayers in Farringdon Road, making a statutory
complaint of nuisance arising from the rag merchant's
business carried on at 75, Farringdon Road.
The premises referred to are also partly within the