LICENSING OF BOARDING HOUSES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3499, 21 March 1905, Page 3

LICENSING OF BOARDING HOUSES.

“0 Tin: Kijiion of im; M.iN.iw.mj itebaTj)’, YlSir, —I observe by a local in your isfhc ot Tuesday last that at the last meeting of the b>-rough council the Town Clerk was in-trncted to obtain legal advice as to the definition of a hoarding-house. l! is t""- ''oul l * of considerable-importem ; e to obtain tins information. so Unit boarding house keepers may- know their-' position, particularly as we have in Foxton some eighteen or twenty houses falong in boarders, most of when, are single men employed At the (laxmilis about the bVvri. It seems, however, Very s f range that the council should have been in existauce some seventeen years and be still unable, to determine without le-gal assistance what goes to make np the idea of a boarding-house. This may no doubt he accounted for on the assumption that the number of boarders in Foxton has increased very considerably of recent years, and probably until how their existence has. been too unobtrusive to come prominently under the notice of the council. One would have supposed however that the council, Was Sufficiently supplied with official publications to enable members to decide a matter of this kind for themselves without invoking the aid of the legal profession. There is nothing in the general by* law of the council relating to the licensing of boarding-houses. The nearest approach is a provision for licensing “ public buildings,” a term which is defined as erections used for public entertainments or lectures-. U is too obvious therefore that the council’s by Idw '('that is the by-law of 1903, and 1 do not know of any having been made since that year) gives it no power to require payment of license fees from boarding-house, keepers', and I gather from vour Ideal above referred to (hit finch demand has been made. Turning to the Municipal Corporations Act 1900 for information as to the council’s power m this respect it appears that section 404 gives the council power to in tike bylaws for 11 defining) licensing, and controlling common lodging houses.” It appears from this that the council is itself entitled to define what a lodging house is, and of course in framing a definition it would be bound by the general limitation which the act imposes upon its power of making bylaws, that is it could not make a definition which would include buildings that are not “ common lodginghouses ” within the legal meaning of the term. The section too merely gives (he council power to make a bylaw for the purpose named, and it is questionable whether they can do anything in the way of demanding license fees until they have in existence a bylaw tor the purpose. By section 353 of the same act extensive powers are given to the council to make by-laws for regulating the dimensions of rooms in dwelling houses, the number of persons occupying them, and generally for the preparation of what is termed a “ house list ” or “ house roll,” which is to he open for inspection at the borough office. The Amendment Act of 1902, section 28, limits these provisions to lodging houses. But here again the council is empowered only to make -by-laws' for these purposes, and Until by-laws exist it can do nothing. These latter provisions too, say nothing about licenses. No definition of “lodging-house” or “common lodging-house ” is given in these acts, the legislature probably assuming that borough councillors wound understand the meaning of ordinary English words. I would suggest that if in this case they do not, it would be as simple a matter for them as it would be for a solicitor to look up the word in some reliable dictionary.

The following extracts on this subject from “ Martin’s opinions on local government law in New Zealand” edited by the solicitor to the Municipal Association of New Zealand are not without interest in this connection : Can by-laws be legally made to include large public hoarding-houses as distinguished from private boarding-houses where a few boarders are kept in a private family ? The proposed by-laws are similar to those actually framed for licensing and regulating common lodging-houses.

This depends upon the character of the house and the class of accommodation offered. . . . “ A common lodging-house is that

class ot lodging-house in winch persons of the poorer class are received for short periods, and although strangers to one another are allowed to inhabit one common room.” (This definition appears to have been subsequently overruled.) I am not aware ot any interpretation by an Australian Court of a “ common lodginghouse.” A statutory definition is given in Victoria. The question remains : Has a borough council authority under the wide by-law-making powers given by the Municipal Corporations Act to extend the proposed by-laws to houses not coming within the definition “ common lodginghouses ” as understood in England ? lam of opinion that it has not. How could the lines be drawn between a high-class hoarding-house and one of less pretension ? Th« English Acts rest principally on the supposed danger of spreading infection through dirt and disease arising from the supposed habits of those who arc promiscuously brought together in common lodging-houses. This distinction, therefore, is know to the law, and I think any further 'distinction would require to be made by Parliament.

In certain cases recently decided in England a by-law, which included in the definition of lodging-house any house occupied by members of more than one family, was held to be bad. This ii is a matter which does not

appear to be dealt with by the various Public Health Acts —except that the 1903 Act gives a borough council general power to make by-lawsto carry nut the provisions of the acts. I think I see a smile oil ciuf worthy town clerk's face when this question of licensing boarding-houses is brought up, in view of a suitable by-Uw being mule aiul the extra revenue that will then go to swell tue council’s coffers. A license fee of £?, per year will bring in from £>fi to £.\o annually and as t!;o council is in need of further revenue tins will lift a. windfall: '-'pc dung sermtisiv, however, I have 110 doubt the .council will do its best •for the town, seeing that it contains some of the best representatives of the ratepayers: who give a good deal of tiicir tune to the advancement and welfare of the borough.

While on the question of local municipal reform it occurs to me to ask would it not he "f assist Utnce to the council if the ratepayers formed themselves into a “ ratepayers association,’’ as is done in most of the larger centres ? If such an association were formed, meeting say once a month, I am convinced they Would, be ol great assist; ancc td the council in many ways, and more particularly perhaps by giving it a better idea of what the ratepayers want in various directions. When the whole body of rate-payers is, represented by A few cchuicilloi's only, it is not always an easy matter for the latter to know altogether♦ what is wanted, however willing they may be to carry out the wishes of the townspeople. In conclusion I should add that m.y action 111 wilting on this subject is prompted by motives of interest in the welfare and advancement of the town, and for that reason I should be much gratified to see some movement of the kind taken up.—l on 1.; etc.; Citizen.