My dear Sir,
* * * * *
Mr. Woolrych asks me whether the vestry can suggest a clause to meet the case of combined drainage when it has appeared to become public drainage by the ill advised arrangements of the late Commissioners?
This was the point on which I saw him some months since, and if the vestry wish it, I will try what is to be done; you had better perhaps give me a call any morning you please.
Yours truly,
William Tite.
From the Vestry Clerk to W. Tite, Esq. M.P.
Pipe Sewers.
January 14th, 1860.
Sir,—Not being a lawyer I speak with great diffidence on the subject of your note of the 7th, but it appears to me that if an alteration were made in the interpretation clause of the Local Management Act, as to the meaning of the word “drain,” it would accomplish what we wish.
It now runs thus, “the word ‘drain’ shall mean and include any drain of and used for the drainage of one building only, or premises within the same curtilage, and made merely for the purpose of communicating with a cesspool or other like receptacle for drainage, or with a sewer into which the drainage of two or more buildings or premises, occupied by different persons, is conveyed, and shall also include any drain for draining any group or block of houses by a combined operation, under the order of any vestry or district board.” I would suggest that the following words be added “or under the order, sanction, or direction of any Commissioners of Sewers, acting within the metropolis previous to the passing of the Act for the better Local Management of the metropolis, 18 and 19 Vic. Cap. 120.”