§
Whenever any watercourse, ditch, gutter, or drain along the side of any street, or between or parallel to rows of dwelling houses, shall be used or partly used for the conveyance of any water, sewage, or other liquid or matter from any premises, and cannot in the opinion of the local authority be rendered free from foulness or offensive smell without the laying down of a sewer or of some other structure, such local authority shall and they are hereby required to lay down such sewer or other structure within the limits of their district, or, where necessary for the purpose of outfall or distribution of sewage, without their district, and to keep the same in good and serviceable repair; and they may enter any premises for such purposes, and use such part thereof as shall be necessary, and for such use shall pay such damages as may be assessed by the sheriff on a summary application, and to such party as the sheriff may direct: Provided always, that no damage stall be payable to any person who has caused or contributed to cause such watercourse, ditch, gutter, or drain to become foul or offensive, unless such person shall satisfy the sheriff that he had justifiable excuse for so doing, and such local authority are hereby authorised and empowered to assess the owners of all the premises (according to the yearly value thereof) from which then or at any time thereafter any material other than pure water flows, falls, or is carried into the said sewer or other structure, for payment of all expenses incurred in making and maintaining the same, and that either in one sum or in instalments, as they shall think
800
just and reasonable, and after fourteen days' notice at the least left with the said owners, if resident within the district, and if not so resident with the occupiers of the said premises, to levy and collect the sums so assessed, with the same remedies in case of default in payment thereof as are herein-after provided with reference to the public health general assessment leviable under this Act.
§ Amendment made: After the words "limits of their district, or "insert "subject to the approval of the Board." (Lord Advocate.)
§ Clause 32,—
§ OFFENSIVE TRADES — PROHIBITION OR REGULATION OF CERTAIN OFFENSIVE BUSINESSES, AND BYELAWS AS TO OFFENSIVE BUSINESSES.
§
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) leave out "fifty-five" and insert "fifty-six."—(Lord Advocate.)
§ MR. BRYCEmoved in Sub-section (6) to leave out "without the sanction of the local authority." He said that these words, if retained, would have the effect of preventing the local authority from having any power of dealing with an offensive trade where carried on in premises which had been enlarged. It might be said that if the premises were enlarged for that purpose, that was equvalent to the sanction of the local authority having been obtained. But the premises might be enlarged without the attention of the local authority being directed to the fact and yet with the intention of carrying on the trade on so large a scale as to amount to a nuisance. He thought it would be better to require that a person who was going to enlarge the premises for that purpose should obtain the sanction of the local authority. If he simply obtained sanction to enlarge, and did not bring to the attention of the local authority the fact that he intended to enlarge his trade, the local authority might be prevented from acting at all.
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that if he could be quite certain that all judges would take the same view as his right hon. Friend he would have no objection to the Amendment, but he could not be certain. Therefore he thought that the omission of the words would place the manufacturer in a perilous position. If the premises were enlarged without the sanction of the local authority, it would be a new business, but if they were enlarged with the sanction of the local authority, it would not a new business. It might happen that after giving a sanction to enlarge, the local authority would not sanction the trade. Therefore he thought the Bill was safer as it stood.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid his proposition was that a provisional application to enlarge would not be merely au application to enlarge premises, but an application to enlarge for the purpose of carrying on the business; in which case the argument of the Lord Advocate would not apply. However, he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 34,—