CO537-(36-37) — Page 201

blendressan.

16.689

90

2057.

A.

A.

A.

I suppose he thought it was.

think I can find them out.

1075

I forget the details. I

- The question of the

Attorney General, and his opinion to officers of the Board. There was a question, "and so the fact rema, i com that although that Bill was passed in December 1903, it was only in the summer of 1906 - • (Witness quotes at length questions and answers on pages 1997 and 1998 of evidence). I had that power alone. I have seen the Attorney General, I may say, today, about that, and he confirms the opinion that he expressed then to me

verbally.

16.689

But the fact still remains that your locum tenens only a few weeks ago did not know for certain, but had to apply again to the Attorney General before he was

prepared to answer that question. - If notices are

issued from the office of the M. 0. H. or Secretary with regard to nuisances, or any other notices iddued

by the Department, do you consider they ought to be served on the individual house owner by the Senior

Inspector or District Inspector, or would it be in

order to allow notless to be served by a foreman or

interpreter ?

I think the serving of notices is governed by the

Ordinance.

If it is governed by the Ordinance, it must be that 1690

notices should be served by an Inspector, because there

is nothing there about serving them by a foreman.

There is a question about that.

Here it is, section 29. "On the receipt of any informat- ion respecting the existance of a nuisance, the Board shall if satisfied of the existence of the nuisance,

serve a notice on the person by whose mot default or

། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

wwwwww www.C.O. 537

361

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE