CO537-36 — Page 425

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