eer
1
ما
J
Chaim v
1586.
4. Pearse.
600
You put a question that you suppose the floor is
impervious, and at the same time, you suppose that although it is impervious, there are ratruns underneath. Personally, I cannot conceive such a thing.
Are not floors to be examined, where rats are found,
and ratruns, although there is no sign or symptom to
tell ?
Shelton Hooper:-
A.
Yes, it is part of the ordinary plague work, that they
should examine houses to see if ratruns exist.
Quite, but I can conceive the rats run along the walls,
but notunder the f ors. Can you find ratruns under
the floora ?
13579
A.
Chairman:-
135-19
20
A.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
C.O. 537
36
You might find a hole just near the skirting, and you might suspect the run came from under the floor.
Well then, you would follow it along?
-
13520
Yes. If I may make an explanation, I would say that if a man suspects ratruns under the concrete, and yet on
I examination he finds that the law is complied with dont mean marginal not.s that there is good concrete, six inches thick and so on, I take it we should have no power to compel the owner to reconcrete under this section, but it is a question whether we should not have power under "Nuisance", section 26, subsection 3,
dealing with ratruns.
•
ין
"
(quotes subsection) "Any building or part of a building
which contains rat hols or ratruns, or which is
infested with rats, o in which the ventilating openings are not protected by gratings, in such manner
as to effectually exclude rats from such building".
(continu) so that if we found ratruns in a building, and suspe ted there were more under the concrete, although we could not see them, and actually found the eone: good, I puthink we could call upon & man
10 d.
'hi a concrete, but you might possilly
he Chairman:-
21
A.
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH
REPRODUCED
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPH NOT TO BE
Page 425Page 426
.00