View report page

17
rents or the owner, that more works had been done than were stated in the notices,
that the works were unnecessary, and had been improperly and extravagantly done
without a previous estimate or tender, that the main drain between the two blocks
was not a drain within the meaning of the Act, and that the inspection of the
drains, which admittedly was only of the branch drains of one house and part of the
main drain, did not warrant notices requiring the drains of the other eleven houses
in the blocks to be reconstructed, and that complaints of the tenants were not
sufficient grounds for the service of such notices under sees. 82 and 85 of the Act.
He called Mr. Saltmarsh, late Inspector under the City Commissioners of Sewers,
who condemned the work as improper and the inspection chambers provided as
unnecessary. Cross-examined, he admitted he had been frequently censured by his
late employers, and had been ordered to apologise to a ratepayer for misconduct ;
that he had been called on to resign and warned that his pension would be stopped
if he carried on business in the City. Mr. Parsons, a Sanitary Inspector of St.
Luke's, Mr. Peacock, late Inspector of Holborn, and Messrs. Breviler, Hughes,
Whitfield, and Hullon, builders, gave evidence generally condemning the work
done, which they thought worth only £100. The caretaker and nine tenants of the
premises stated that no rent was paid to Pilbrow, but only to his sons.
Mr. Hose, in giving judgment, said that Pilbrow had the chance, under sec. 211
of the Act, of appealing to the London County Council if he thought the notices
improper, or the works unnecessary, but he had failed to do so. It was a matter of
common knowledge that inspection chambers were necessary in such works as
these. He thought the inspection of the drains in the first instance a reasonably
sufficient one, and it was not necessary to open up all the drains for inspection. The
price charged for the work appeared to be reasonable, and the Yestry was not
bound to get tenders for the work, or do it in a cheap and nasty manner, and he
could not conceive a public body carrying out such works in the most expensive
way possible. The defendant had the opportunity of proving he was not the owner
or collector in the easiest way, but he had not chosen to avail himself of it, and
Mr. Rose was of opinion that he was the owner under the Act, and he accordingly
gave judgment for the Vestry for the amount claimed, with £20 costs. He declined
to grant a case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division.
NATHAN v. SHOREDITCH VESTRY.
On the 10th May, 1892, a writ was issued by Mr. Abraham Nathan, of Mansfield
Street, Kingsland Road, for damages in respect of an alleged injury to his
knee, said to have been caused by stumbling against one of the Yestry's brooms
laid slanting against the wall on the pavement under the arch in Mansfield Street,
Kingsland Road, on 10th December, 1891.
The Paving Committee having fully considered the matter before proceedings
were taken, had resolved that they could not see their way to recommend the