Poor Rate-continued.

was one of a block through which a con-
tinuous shafting passed, and at the end of
the block was a notice, "For storage apply
to the Liverpool Warehousing Company."
One of the warehouses in respect of which
notice had been given to the appellants had
been advertised us to let by a notice affixed
on the warehouse itself.

Held, that the justices were justified in coming

to the conclusion that there was no occupa-
tion of the warehouses so as to render the
respondents liable to be rated in respect
thereof.

Mayor of Southend-on-Sea v. White, 65
J. P. 7, considered.

65 J. P. 740. King's Bench Division.
June 4, 1901. Overseers of Bootle v. Liverpool
Warehousing Company; The same v. J. and T.
Webster

...

Practice. See CRIMINAL LAW, 20.

Prescription. See HIGHWAYS, 6.

Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871. See CRIM-
INAL LAW, 4.

Private Street Works Act. See PUBLIC
HEALTH, 5.

Prostitute. See VAGRANCY ACT.

Public Health.-1. General district rate-
Occupation Shop used for summer
season- -Liability to rate-Public Health
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 211.
The respondent held under an agreement from
the appellants a shop on the pier. By the
terms of the agreement no one was to sleep
on the premises. The respondent used the
shop during the summer season, but before
the winter he removed all the stock leaving
certain shelves and mirrors in the shop which
was then locked up and left unoccupied.
Held that the respondent was liable to be
rated for the time the shop was left shut up.
65 J. P. 7. Queen's Bench Division.
October 30, 1900. Mayor, &c., of Southend-
on-Sea v. White

...

...

...

...

Public Health - 2. Nuisance-Liability of
owner to abate - Rent collector served
with notice-Agent-" Owner"-Public
Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss.
4, 94.

Public Health-continued.

A complaint was preferred against respondent,
a collector of rents and agent for the owner
of certain property, under section 94 of the
Public Health Act, 1875.

Section 4 of the statute provides that “'owner'

means the person for the time being re-
ceiving the rack rent of the lands or
premises . . . whether on his own account
or as agent or trustee for any oʻher person."
Held, that the rent collector was the " owner
within the definition of section 4 in respect
of the abatement of a nuisance.
Mayor, &c., of St. Helen's v. Kirkham, 16
Q. B. D. 403; 50 J. P. 647, followed.
65 J. P. 70. Queen's Bench Division.
November 15, 1900. Broadbent v. Shepherd...

-

Public Health-3. Factory-Notice as to
sanitary requirements by inspector-Pro-
ceedings before justices Power of
justices to inquire into necessity of
requirements-Appeal-Public Health
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 38—
Factory and Workshop Act, 1878
(41 Vict. c. 16), s. 4-Public Health Acts
Amendment Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict.
c. 59), s. 22-Factory and Workshop Act,
1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 75), s. 2-Factory
and Workshop Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict.
c. 37), s. 3.

Where a factory inspector has given a notice as
to sanitary requirements under the Public
Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890,
8. 22 (2), and the factory and workshop
Act, 1891, s. 2, the justices have no juris-
diction to inquire as to the necessity for
or the reasonableness of the requirements
specified in the notice. The sole duty of
the justices is to inquire whether there has
been a neglect or refusal to comply with
the notice. The only way in which the
question of the reasonableness or necessity
for the sanitary requirements can be raised
is by direct appeal to quarter sessions from
the notice given by the inspector.

Phillimore, J., dissentiente.

65 J. P. 196. Queen's Bench Division.
January 11, 18, 1901. Tracey v. Pretty

Public Health-continued.
The predecessors of the appellants had made
an agreement with the owner of a
margarine factory that he should be
entitled subject to certain conditions to
discharge the effluent from the factory
into their sewers. Owing to a breach of
this agreement the soil of a sewage farm,
the property of the appellants, became
clogged and consequently offensive matter
found its way into the river Brent.
Held, that it was the appellants who "caused
or suffered to flow or pass" sewage or
other injurious matter into the river
within section 13 of the Middlesex County
Council Act, 1898.

65 J. P. 215. Queen's Bench Division.
January 21, 1901. Southall and Norwood
Urban District Council v. Middlesex County
Council

...

...

...

Whether alleged private street a high-
way-Highway made since 1842-Pre-
sumption as to compliance with for-
malities under Highway Act, 1835 -
Private Street Works Act, 1892 (55 & 56
Vict. c. 57), s. 7- Highway Act, 1835
(5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 50), ss. 23, 84-92.
In 1842 a resolution was passed at a vestry
meeting that a road known as Rectory
Grove should be substituted for an old
highway repairable by the inhabitants at
large known as Chess-lane. There was no
evidence that any certificate of justices had
been enrolled or steps taken under the
Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 50),
ss. 23 or 81, but ever since 1842 Rectory
Grove had been open to and used by the
public, and upon one occasion it had been
repaired by the surveyor of the district
of Leigh, but there was no evidence as to
whether it was in his capacity as surveyor
or not.

Held, that the justices were justified in finding
that Rectory Grove was a highway repair-
able by the inhabitants at large.

65 J. P. 243. Queen's Bench Division.
January 14, 19, 1901. Leigh-on-Sea Urban
District Council v. King

PAGE

93

...

...

100

Public Health-6. Water supply-Agreement
between district council and water com-
pany-Use of water for purposes other
than agreed-"Persons having from the

Public Health-continued.

undertakers a supply of water for other
than domestic purposes "-Water Works
Clauses Act, 1863 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 93)
s. 18.

A rural district council agreed with a water
company that the latter should take over
their mains and stand pipes and convey
a supply of water through them to be
used for certain purposes in consideration
of an annual payment of 301. by the
council. The water company prosecuted

one of the ratepayers of the district for
using the water for the purposes of his
own trade, being purposes other than those
mentioned in the agreement.

Held, that the consumer was a "person having
from the undertakers a supply of water for
other than domestic purposes" and ought to
be convicted under the Water Works Clauses
Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 93), s. 18.
65 J. P. 281.
February 4, 1901.

King's Bench Division.
Andrews v. Witts ...

Public Health-7. Temporary wooden struc-
ture-Shelter for weighing machine
-Temporary refreshment stall-New
building-Byelaw-Public Health Act,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 157.
An urban sanitary authority passed a byelaw
under the powers conferred by the Public
Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55),
s. 157, that every person who shall erect
a new building shall cause such building
to be enclosed with walls constructed of
good bricks, stone, or other hard and in-
combustible material properly bonded and
solidly put together. The respondent in
the first case (Archer) erected a wooden
structure measuring 10 ft. by 7 ft., with
a height of 10 ft., as a shelter for a large
weighing machine on the esplanade, where
the public stopped for the purpose of
using the weighing machine. The respon
dent in the second case (Romanis) had
erected a wooden shelter measuring
9 ft. 3 in. by 6 ft. 11 in. with a height of
7 ft. 5 in. to shelter a counter on which tea,
coffee, and light refreshments were sold
on the esplanade.

Held, that neither of such structures were new
buildings within the meaning of the byelaw.
65 J. P. 292. King's Bench Division.
January 25, 1901. Mayor, &c., of Southend-on-
Sea v. Archer; Mayor, &c., of Southend-on-Sea
v. Romanis ...

PAGE

142

Public Health-9. Consolidated rate-Ex-
emption-Land reclaimed from Thames
-New tax or assessment-7 Geo. III.
c. 37, s. 51-City of London Sewers Act,
1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii.), ss. 168, 169.
The exemption conferred by section 51 of 7
Geo. 111. c. 37 upon land reclaimed from
the river Thames under that Act only
extends to taxes and assessments in
existence when the Act was passed. The
consolidated rate imposed by sections 168
and 169 of the City of London Sewers Act,
1848, is a substantially new assessment, and
therefore does not fall within the exemption.
65 J. P. 324. Court of Appeal. January
29, 1901. President and Fellows of Sion College
v. Mayor, &c., of the City of London

Public Health-10. General district rate-
Appeal-Alteration of valuation list-
Proceeding to enforce reduced rate-
Time when matter of complaint arose-
Limitation of proceedings Summary
Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict.
c. 43), s. 11-Public Health Act, 1875 (38
& 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 256.

The respondents were rated in the valuation list
as the occupiers of certain premises, and
poor rates and two general district rates
were demanded upon the basis of the valua
tion list. A payment of part of the general
district rate was made by the respondents
on account; they then appealed against the
poor rates, and on that appeal their assess-
ment was reduced. The valuation list was
amended accordingly, and the figures of the
general rate based on the valuation list were
lowered in accordance with the alteration
in the valuation list. A demand note was

Public Health-continued.

then made upon the respondents to pay the
amount of the two amended general district
rates less the sums already paid on account,
and a summons to enforce payment taken
out within six months after the demand of
the reduced rate, but more than six months
after the demand for the whole unamended
rate.

Held, the complaint being the respondents had
not paid the amended rates, the matter of
the complaint arose when the demand was
first made to pay the amended rates, and
not when the demand was first made to pay
the original rates, and that therefore the
proceedings were instituted within the six
months' limit provided by the Summary
Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict.
c. 43), s. 11.

65 J. P. 341. King's Bench Division.
February 7, 1901. Keeton v. Sheffield Coal
Company, Limited...

...

...

Public Health-11. Sewer-Drain-Laying
sewer in land of another-Public Health
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 4, 13.
In November, 1899, W., the owner of a plot of
land on which he had erected two semi-
detached houses, laid down two sets of pipes
connecting the water-closets of the houses
with a sewer vested in the local authority.
This connection was made partly under a
road which had been conveyed to the plain-
tiff, who claimed a declaration that W. was
not entitled to drain his premises through
the plaintiff's land. W. submitted that his
two houses were two buildings within the
Public Health Act, 1875, and that from the
point of junction of the pipes to the sewer
was a sewer within the Act.

Held, that the erection was only one building,
although it consisted of two semi-detached
houses.

Held also, that a man by making a culvert
wrongfully on another man's land without
his consent could not make the culvert a
sewer and divert the property from the
owner of the land.

65 J. P. 425. Chancery Division. March 26,
1901. Hedley v. Webb

...

...

Public Health-12. Nuisance-Abatement-
"Owner"-" Agent"- Termination of
agency-Default-Jurisdiction of jus
tices-Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39
Vict. c. 55), ss. 4, 94, 95, 96, 98, 104.

Public Health-continued.

The respondent was the agent to the owner of
certain houses, and an order was served on
him requiring him as owner to abate the
nuisance. The justices refused to make the
order on the ground that he was not the
owner within the meaning of the Public
Health Act, 1875. This decision was re-
versed on appeal by the divisional court,
and the case remitted to the justices. At
the second hearing before the justices it
appeared the respondent had resigned his
post as agent, and the justices dismissed the

summons.

Held, that the justices had jurisdiction to make
the order against the respondent to abate
the nuisance, though he had ceased to be the
agent to the owner of the property.
65 J. P. 499. King's Bench Division.
May 2, 1901. Broadbent v. Shepherd ...

Public Health-13. Nuisance-Discharge into
drain-Sewer-Right of use-Public
Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55),
s. 21

The owner or occupier of any premises whose
drains are connected with the sewer of the
local authority for the purpose of draining
surface and slop water is not entitled to
change the character of the discharge with-
out giving notice to the local authority
under section 21 of the Public Health Act,
1875, even though this alteration does not
involve any new connection between the
drain and the sewer.

65 J. P. 710. Court of Appeal. May 3,
June 13, 1901. Graham v. Wroughton

...

Public Health (London)—continued.
The appellants were summoned for allowing
black smoke to issue from their chimney on
several occasions. No evidence was given
that the black smoke was a nuisance to any
individual.

Held, that the appellants were rightly convicted
under the Public Health (London) Act,
1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 24 (b).
65 J. P. 627. King's Bench Division.
May 8, 1901. South London Electric Supply
Corporation v. Perrin

Public Health (London)—2. Artisans' dwel-
lings-House let in lodgings or occupied
by members of more than one family-
Lodging-house-Regulation, supervision
and inspection of - Byelaws - Public
Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict.
c. 76), s. 94.

The sanitary authority had made byelaws
under the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, for inspection and supervision of
lodging-houses, which were defined to mean
a house or part of a house which was let in
lodgings or occupied by members of more
than one family, subject to a limit of rent.
Held, that a building which was divided into

separate tenements and let as artisans'
dwellings was not a "house" within the
meaning of section 94 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, so as to enable the
sanitary authority to make byelaws for its
regulation, supervision and inspection.

65 J. P. 644. King's Bench Division.
May 13, 1901. Weatheritt v. Cantlay...

Public Health Act, 1875. See HIGHWAYS, 4.
Public House. See POOR RATE, 2.

Quarries. See MINES.

Railway-Locomotive emitting black smoke
-No evidence of locomotive being con-
structed on principle of consuming its
own smoke-Railway Clauses Consolida-
tion Act, 1815 (8 Vict. c. 20), s. 114-
Regulation of Railways Act, 1868
(31 & 32 Vict. c. 119), s. 19.

The appellants were summoned for allowing
certain locomotives to emit black smoke for
more than three minutes on various occa-
sions. Evidence was given that the coal
used was smoky coal, but no evidence was

Railway-continued.

given that the locomotives were not con-
structed on the principle of consuming their
own smoke.

Held, that the appellants were rightly convicted
under the Railway Clauses Consolidation
Act, 1845. s. 114, as amended by the Regu
lation of Railways Act, 1868, s. 19.

65 J. P. 568. King's Bench Division.
May 7, 1901. South-Eastern and Chatham
Railway Company v. London County County...
Railway. See Poor Rate, 7, 9.
Rateable Value. See POOR RATE, 10.
Rating-Exemption-Voluntary Schools Act,

1897 (60 Vict. c. 5), ss. 3, 4-Deaf and
dumb home certified under Elementary
Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act,
1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 42)—" Day" school.
A deaf and dumb home certified under the

Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf
Children) Act, 1893, for the education,
boarding, and lodging of 54 deaf children
of both sexes, and for the education of 20 of
such children as day pupils, and in receipt
of contributions from various school boards
and a grant from the Education Department,
is not a voluntary school within the meaning
of section 4 of the Voluntary Schools Act,
1897; and, therefore, not exempt from rates.
65 J. P. 137. County of London Quarter
Sessions. February 4, 1901. Trustees of the
Jews' Deaf and Dumb Home, Wandsworth v.
Wandsworth and Clapham Union Assessment
Committee

...

Rating. See Poor Rate; PUBLIC HEALTH,
1, 10.

Reservoir. See FISHERY ACTS.

Restitution of Goods. See CRIMINAL LAW,
17, 18.

River Pollution. See PUBLIC HEALTH, 4.

Sale of Food and Drugs-1. Mercury oint-
ment-Compounded drug-Standard of
strength below British Pharmacopeia-
Pharmacy Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 121),
s. 15-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875
(38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 7.

The respondent, an inspector of food and drugs
appointed by the county council, went into
the appellant's shop and asked to be
435

PAGE

313

Sale of Food and Drugs-continued.

He

supplied with “. mercury ointment."
was supplied with a box containing oint-
ment labelled "The ointment-mercurial
poison," but the ointment contained a less
proportion of mercury than the formula
prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia.
Held, that although no mention of the British
Pharmacopoeia was made by the respon
dent he should be deemed to have demanded
that the ointment should be compounded
according to the formula contained therein
and that the appellant ought to be con-
victed under the Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 6, of
having sold a drug not of the " nature,
substance, or quality demanded by the
purchaser."

Held, also, that as mercury ointment was a
compounded drug, such sale did probably
constitute an offence under section 7 of the
Act, but that it also constituted an offence
under section 6, under which the proceedings
were taken.

65 J. P. 262. King's Bench Division.
January 25, 29, 1901. Dickins v. Randerson

Sale of Food and Drugs-2. Certificate of
analyst-Omission to state weight of
sample-Sufficiency of certificate-Sale
of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39
Vict. c. 63), s. 18.

The appellant was summoned for selling adul-
terated butter to the prejudice of the pur-
chaser. The analyst's certificate followed
the form in the schedule of the Act, but
omitted the words "which then weighed."
Held, that the omission to state the weight of
the sample only invalidated the certificate
where the correctness of the analysis of the
article depended upon the weight of the
sample.

65 J. P. 548. King's Bench Division.
April 23, 1901. Sneath v. Taylor

...

262

Sale of Food and Drugs-3. Beer-Arsenic
in beer-Liability of innocent vendor-
Beer not of the "nature, substance and
quality of the article demanded
Analyst's certificate-Sufficiency - Sale
of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39
Vict. c. 63), ss. 3, 6.

-

During the process of manufacture a quantity
of arsenic injurious to health was acciden-
tally and unknown to all parties mixed
with beer. The beer was then retailed