View report page

63
In connection with this subject, the Vestry received a communication
in December, 1890, from the Finsbury Park Vigilance Association
calling attention to the position taken up by the Vestry with regard to
the prosecution of keepers of disorderly houses and to the action of the
Association in suppressing such houses in the parish, and inquiring
whether the Vestry would repay to the Association the costs incurred. It
may here be noted that on a report from the General Purposes
Committee presented in January, 1890, the Vestry had decided to
adhere to the provisions of the Act of George II., which requires
that two ratepayers shall enter into their recognisances to produce
material evidence before proceedings were taken, and further,
that as representing the Overseers, it would confine itself to prosecuting
in those cases only where complaints have been made by ratepayers
as provided by that Act. The General Purposes Committee to whom
the letter from the Vigilance Association was referred caused communications
to be addressed to overseers of other metropolitan parishes as to
the mode of procedure adopted by them, and found that in some
parishes the system was similar to that in Islington, while in others the
recognisances of two ratepayers were not required the costs of the
prosecution being paid out of the general rate. The Vestry accordingly
modified its practice so far as to authorise its Committee in any
notorious case where a difficulty was found in obtaining two ratepayers
willing to enter into their recognisances to proceed without such recognisances,
and, if necessary, to charge the expenses of the prosecutions
to the general rate. The Vigilance Association was informed in reply
to its application that the Vestry had no power to refund any expenses
incurred by the Association.