and the Burgh Police Act, 1892, s. 4 (13), and see Owner. See notes to Housing Code, s. 10. See also Agnew v. Middle Ward of Lanarkshire, 29, Land.-See Housing Code, s. 4, and notes. Buildings unfit for Human Habitation. MEDICAL OFFICER'S DUTY. 23. It shall be the duty of the medical officer of health of 1890, s. 30. every district to represent to the local authority of that district any dwelling-house which appears to him to be in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation. [1890, s. 30.] As to cellar dwellings, see 1909, s. 17 (7) (Housing Code, s. 24 (7)); as to back-to-back dwellings, see 1909, s. 43 (Housing Code, s. 76), and Public Health Act, 1897, s. 74; and as to houses with less than three rooms, see 1919, s. 44 (Housing Code, s. 77). s. 6. Represent. As to representations, see Housing Code, Dangerous and injurious, &c.-The words "fit ” The words" dangerous" and "injurious to health " (e.g., s. 8) the expression used is "dangerous or prejudicial "to health," and there is no apparent explanation for the use of this different but exactly equivalent term. See also the nuisance" provisions of the Public Health Act, s. 16 et seq., and the Burgh Police Act, 1892, ss. 107-127, dealing with cleansing. The Housing Act of 1885, s. 9, which deals with tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures used for human habitation is re-enacted as s. 73 of the Public Health Act, 1897, being more akin to the nuisance provisions of that Act than to housing legislation proper. 1909, s. 17. 1909, s. 53 (14), (17). 1919, Sch. II. Procedure for Closing Orders. 24. (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to cause to be made from time to time inspection of their district, with a view to ascertain whether any dwelling-house therein is in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, and for that purpose it shall be the duty of the local authority, and of every officer of the local authority, to comply with such regulations and to keep such records as may be prescribed by the Board. (2) If, on the representation of the medical officer of health, or of any other officer of the authority, or other information given, any dwelling-house appears to them to be in such a state, it shall be their duty to make an order prohibiting the use of the dwelling-house for human habitation (in this Code referred to as a closing order) until in the judgment of the local authority the dwelling-house is rendered fit for that purpose. (3) Notice of a closing order shall be forthwith served on every owner of the dwelling-house in respect of which it is made, and any owner aggrieved by the order may appeal to the Sheriff by giving notice of appeal to the Sheriff within fourteen days after the notice is served upon him. Provided that, where an appeal is competent under this section, an appeal shall not be competent under sec. 30 of this Code. (4) Where a closing order has become operative, the local authority shall serve notice of the order on the occupier of the dwelling-house in respect of which the order is made, and, within such period as is specified in the notice, not being less than fourteen days after the service of the notice, the order shall be obeyed by him, and he and his family shall cease to inhabit the dwelling-house, and in default he shall be liable on summary conviction to be ordered to quit the dwelling-house within such time as may be specified in the order. (5) Unless the dwelling-house has been made unfit for habitation by the wilful act or default of the tenant or of any person for whom as between himself and the owner or landlord he is responsible, the local authority shall make to every such tenant such reasonable allowance on account of his expense in removing as may be determined by the local authority with the consent of the owner of the dwelling-house, or, if the owner of the dwelling-house fails to consent to the sum determined by the local authority, as may be fixed by a court of summary jurisdiction, and the amount of the said allowance shall be recoverable by the local authority from the owner of the dwelling-house in a summary manner. (6) The local authority shall determine any closing order made by them if they are satisfied that the dwelling-house, in respect of which the order has been made, has been rendered fit for human habitation. If, on the application of any owner of a dwelling-house, the local authority refuse to determine a closing order, the owner may appeal to the Sheriff by giving notice of appeal to the Sheriff within fourteen days after the application is refused. Provided that where an appeal is competent under this section, an appeal shall not be competent under sec. 30 of this Code. (7) A room habitually used as a sleeping-place, the surface of the floor of which is more than three feet below the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a dwelling-house so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, if the room either— (a) is not on an average at least seven feet in height from floor to ceiling; or (b) does not comply with such regulations as the local authority with the consent of the Board may prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting of such rooms, and the protection thereof against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation: Provided that if the local authority, after being required to do so by the Board, fail to make such regulations or such regulations as the Board approve, the Board may themselves make them, and the regulations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the local authority with the consent of the Board: Provided that a closing order made in respect of a room to which this sub-section applies shall not prevent the room being 1909, s. 53 (14). used for purposes other than those of a sleeping-place; and that, if the occupier of the room after notice of an order has been served upon him fails to comply with the order, an order to comply therewith may, on summary conviction, be made against him. A closing order made in respect of any room to which this sub-section applies shall not be treated as a closing order in respect of a dwelling-house for the purposes of the next succeeding section. (8) Section 146 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (prescribing the procedure if a local authority neglect its duty) shall have effect as if the duties imposed under this section were duties imposed by that Act. [1909, ss. 17, 53 (14) and (17); 1919, Sch. II.] see (1) Inspection of district.-For regulations, Appendix, p. 269. The work is generally performed by the local medical officer, but in some areas by the sanitary inspector or burgh surveyor. The expenses fall to be defrayed out of the public health general assessment under 1890, s. 42 (1); 1909, ss. 47 (1), 53 (5); 1919, s. 4. Local Government Board Annual Report, 1910. See Dangerous or injurious, &c. See Summerlee Iron Company v. Musselburgh Town Council, 26 Sh.Ct. Rep. 334; Kirkpatrick v. Maxwelltown Burgh, 1912, S.C. 288; Hall v. Manchester Corporation, 78 J.P. 315, 79 J.P. 385, 31 T.L.R. 416, an important case under the Manchester Corporation Waterworks and Improvement Act, 1867. The expressions "dangerous" and "injurious to "health" are not alternative, but cumulative, the second being exegetical of the first. The question is one of fact to be determined by the local authority by applying in a judicial spirit the standard of an ordinary, reasonable man. A building may be unfit for human habitation from any reason, e.g., inadequate light and ventilation, and not merely because of structural or sanitary defects existing within the building itself; but before this section can be applied, there must be not only "unfitness for habitation," but also " danger or injury to health" causing such unfitness. It does not, however, follow that a whole dwellinghouse is unfit for habitation because certain rooms therein are so unfit. See also Housing Code, s. 5. s. 6). (2) Representation.-See 1890, s. 5 (Housing Code, Closing order.-Alternative methods of procedure are afforded by the nuisance sections of the Public Health Act, and by 1909, s. 15 (Housing Code, s. 27). The latter method is recommended in the Local Government Board Annual Report, 1910, p. lxxvi., especially where the dwelling-house in question forms part of a tenement otherwise unexceptionable. There is nothing to prevent a closing order being applied to an unoccupied house. Cf. Robertson v. King, 1901, 2 K.B. 265, a case under the 1890 Act, and see 1919, s. 24. The objection to indiscriminate use of closing orders is that the amount of available accommodation is thereby reduced, and it is therefore preferable in congested areas to apply 1909, s. 15, wherever possible. For form of closing order and directions, see Appendix, p. 260, and Kirkpatrick v. Maxwelltown Burgh, 1912, S.C. 288. In that case the Court advised the Board to revise the form of closing order prescribed by them in such a way as to provide for disclosure, with detailed specification, of the grounds for making it. This suggestion was at once adopted by the Board (see Annual Report, 1911, p. lxviii.), and new forms were issued on 6th March, 1912. See Appendix, p. 289. (3) Service. There is no provision in the Act that the local authority must give the owner an opportunity of being heard. Nevertheless, in view of the opinions of the Lord President in the Maxwelltown case (1912, S.C., at 295) and of Lord Parker in the Manchester case (79 J.P., at 389), it is highly advisable that the owner should be given an opportunity of stating his case (e.g., by sending him a copy of the medical officer's report) before drastic measures are taken. There is no obligation upon the local authority to exercise their powers under 1909, s. 15 (Housing Code, s. 27), before making a closing order; see the Marwelltown case at p. 295, but, for the reasons indicated above, 1909, s. 15, will usually afford a preferable method of dealing with the case. Owner. On this point see Local Government Board Circular, printed in Appendix at p. 287, and also Housing Code, s. 10, and notes. See also United Collieries, Limited v. Midlothian County Council, 28 Sh.Ct. Rep. 329; Agnew v. Middle Ward of Lanarkshire, 29 Sh.Ct.Kep. 275; Rayner v. Stepney Corporation, 1911, 2 Ch. 312; Arlidge v. Hampstead Metropolitan Borough, 1915, W.N. 359; and a Glasgow case briefly reported in the Times of 6th January, 1911, as indicating the difficulties likely to arise if the most scrupulous care is not observed both as to the form of the notice and the persons on whom it is served. On the question of closing, orders applicable to dwellings in tenement property, contrast the Maxwelltown case (1912, S. C. 288) with the subsequent case of M'Diarmid v. Glasgow Housing Committee, 1917, S.C. 361, and comments of Local Government Board in their Annual Report for 1917, p. xxii. It is advisable that separate orders should be made for each dwelling in a tenement, but the question of how demolition is to be carried out in such a case has never been satisfactorily explained. (4) Operative. As to when an order becomes operative, see 1909, s. 39 (2) (Housing Code, s. 126 (2)). This subsection is loosely drawn, since it provides no effective means of enforcement. Disobedience to a closing order by an occupier is not an offence either by statute or at common |