London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

St Mary (Islington) 1892

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Islington, Parish of St. Mary ]

This page requires JavaScript

71
It may therefore be taken as law that a person is not disqualified
from acting as a Vestryman because he is rated in respect of a hereditament
part of which he sub-lets, so long as he can prove that he possesses
a beneficial occupation in it to the extent of £40 rateable value.
Harper v. The Vestry.
A summons was served at the instance of the plaintiff, returnable
at the Clerkenwell Police Court on July 20th, 1892, for £1 2s., in
respect of alleged damage to plaintiff's brougham caused by one of the
Vestry's dust carts, but the claim was subsequently settled.
Smithers (otherwise Henry) v. The Vestry.
This action for alleged damage to plaintiff's horse and brougham
through a subsidence in Poet's Road (referred to in the report for last
year) having been abandoned, the Solicitor to the Vestry succeeded
in recovering the costs, amounting to £1 10s. 8d., which the Vestry
had been put to in entering an appearance, &c.
Rolfe v. Thompson.
In this case the plaintiff, one of the Vestry's Sanitary Inspectors,
had taken proceedings against the defendant, a wholesale milk vendor,
under section 3 of the Sale'of Food and Drugs Act, 1879, but the Magistrate,
Mr. Horace Smith, had dismissed the summons on the ground
that the Inspector in not dividing the milk into three portions when he
first obtained it had failed to comply with one of the requirements of
the Act. The Vestry decided to appeal, and the case came on for
hearing before Justices Grantham and Charles on June 16th, 1892,
when the decision of the Magistrate was reversed, the Court being of
opinion that it was a sufficient compliance with the Act to divide the
sample originally taken and send one portion of it to the Analyst.
Stainforth v. The Vestry.
The plaintiff claimed damages for an accident alleged to have
been caused by the defective state of the footpath in Grrenville Road,
but on the hearing of the summons at the Clerkenwell County Court,
on December 2nd, 1892, he was non-suited, on the ground that the
Vestry was not liable for acts of nonfeasance.