London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Shoreditch 1891
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Shoreditch, Parish of St. Leonard]
This page requires JavaScript
46
Secretary's Order and the wretched state of the property in those streets, they declined
to adopt this suggestion. The Council on further consideration agreed to support
the Yestrv's scheme with some additional provisions as to re-housiug the persons
displaced; and the necessary steps for proceeding to execute the scheme are now
in progress. The views of the Vestry were strongly supported before the Council
by their representative Mr. Nathan Moss. The Vestry adopted a scheme for
raising the sum of £40,000 for the above improvement by the issue of Debenture
Bonds under the Local Loans Act, 1875, but this scheme has not advanced far
enough to be dealt with in this Report.
OVERSEERS' BUSINESS.
(a) DISORDERLY HOUSES.
On behalf of the Overseers of the Poor I have conducted three prosecutions
during the year against the managers of disorderly houses, in each of which a
conviction was obtained, and fines to the amount of £20 inflicted.
The following are particulars of the cases:—
| Defendant's Name. | Premises. | Fine. | Date. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emma Mitchell | 39, Clifton Street | £5 or 1 month's imprisonment. | 14th March, 1891 |
| Mary Smith | 11, Bridport Place | £5 or 1 month's imprisonment. | 10th Sept., 1891 |
| Jessie Johnson | 25, Clifton Street | £10 or 1 month's imprisonment. | 7th Dec., 1891 |
In Mitchell's case the two rewards of £10 each, under 25 Geo. II. c. 36, were
claimed by the National Vigilance Society on behalf of the two informants. I
pointed out that as the prosecution had been carried out by the Overseers and not
by the constable on whom the preliminary notice was also served, the reward had
not strictly become payable, as the exact conditions laid down in the statute had
not been complied with. The fact that the overseers of other parishes had paid the
reward under similar circumstances was urged by the Society in pressing their
case, but after some negotiation it was agreed that the claim should be withdrawn
on payment of the expenses of the Society in connection with some witnesses in the
case.
In Smith's case there were two children living in the house, and application
was made to the magistrate to take them out of the custody of the defendant.
Upon the aunt of the children coming forward and promising to take care of them,
the magistrate allowed her to have the custody of them.
Complaints were received and observation was kept on 2, Lewington Buildings,
7, Brunswick Place, 2, Hilcott Street, and 19, Hertford Road. The result only
justified the issue of a warrant in one case (19, Hertford Road), but the
defendant moved away before it could be executed. In the other cases, notices
cautioning the occupiers were served, as there was not sufficient evidence to