Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

c. 61, s. 28.

mined by a jury whether or not the house does form part of a Definition of แ 'street," and semble, that a set of detached houses, not being "street." in a continuous line, but some facing one way and some an- 24 & 25 Vict. other, and having no appearance of uniformity, is not a street within the meaning of the Act. (1) Per curiam with reference to the Metropolis Local Management Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 102, 5. 98, the question is more or less one of fact, for the magistrate to see that there is enough of houses to make it (the locus in quo) a street, and if so, whether the appellant had left twenty feet from the crown of the road. (2)

With reference to the word "street" as used in a Local Act Ib. empowering the Corporation of the City of London to take. lands &c., for the purpose of forming a new street, in Galloway v. Commonalty and Citizens of London, and The Metropolitan Railway Company and the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of London v. Galloway, (3) it was held by the House of Lords on appeal that the word "street" does not mean the mere roadway, but "a thoroughfare with houses on both sides." Per Lord Chelmsford: "When the Legislature empowered the Corporation to take lands, houses, and buildings for the purposes of the Act, it did not confine them to the mere width of the intended road, but gave the authority to take as much land as might be necessary for the formation of the street itself, by the erection of houses or other buildings on each side."

With regard to what constitutes the line of building when Line of there are fore-courts to the houses, the following judgment in buildings. a case which occurred under the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 143, may be quoted. "Here was a regular line of building to the extent of 700 feet, no matter what was to the north or to the south of that portion, and in the line stands the plaintiff's house. Before the building which was pulled down was erected, the fore-court was not built upon. The plaintiff has covered the whole of the fore-court in, and if all the other proprietors of the house were to do the same, the space for light and air would be considerably contracted, and the new building having been erected without the leave of the Board of Works, and being beyond the regular line of buildings in the street, the case falls within sect. 143, and the district surveyors might lawfully cause it to be removed." (4)

On the same point see Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Courtenay v. St. James and St. John Clerkenwell, (5) which had reference to the erection of a church in the metropolis beyond the line of the adjoining buildings.

It has been held with reference to the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, S. 143, that where a

(1) Reg. v. Fulford, 10 L. T. (N. s.) 346; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 522; 33 L. J. M. C. 122.

(2) Taylor, app., v. Metropolitan Board of Works, resp., 31 J. P. 87.

(3) 35 L. J. Ch. 492; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 747.

(4) Robins v. Merry, 32 L. T. 256. (5) 7 Jur. (N. S.) 326, 810; 30 L. J. Ch. 454.

Line of buildings.

street is built with an irregular line of buildings, in order to judge whether a proposed new building is within the line, it is enough that a general uniformity be preserved. (1) The object of the Act, Crowder, J., said, is to obtain general uniformity in the construction of new streets; it does not require a mathematical line, but a general uniformity of line: and per Willes J.; "The object of the Legislature is to enforce a general uniformity in the line of building in new streets; and it is not necessary to have a straight line, in order to make a regular line within the statute. If there is a general and uniform direction to the eye, that is a regular line of building, and new buildings must conform to this general rule." With regard to erections facing each other within prescribed distances in streets, see Reg. v. Sidebotham (2), which however, related to the Manchester Local Improvement Act.

In a proceeding before a magistrate under s. 75 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), for building an "erection" beyond the general line of buildings in a street, the certificate of the superintending architect of the Metropolitan Board of Works as to what line is "the general line of buildings," does not preclude the magistrate from questioning and determining whether such line be a true line of buildings in that street or not. Wherefore a small conservatory having been erected over a projecting shop-front in that street, and the magistrate having decided that it was not an erection within the meaning of the Act, the Court refused to review his decision. (3) This decision of the Court of Common Pleas was, however, overruled in a case in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which that Court held that the "general line of buildings" was the general line of buildings as fixed by the superintending architect of the Metropolitan Board of Works. (4)

In relation to the 24 & 25 Vict, c. 61, s. 28, the following is instructive-Mr. William Nicholson, of King's Bench Walk, and Brighton, a barrister, was arraigned upon an indictment which charged him with violating the provisions of the Local Government Act by building a porch to No. 35, Oriental Place, Brighton, beyond the line of frontage.

Mr. Hurst and Mr. Merrifield were counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Philbrick appeared for the defendant.

Mr. Justice Willes, early in the trial, remarked that it was a civil proceeding, and he supposed the defendant had not. been put in the dock. Mr. Serjeant Parry said the authori

(1) Tear v. Freebody, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 228.

(2) 28 L. J. M. C. 189; 33 L. T. 187; 5 Jur. (N. s.) 1083.

(3) St. George, Hanover Square, v. Sparrow, 33 L. J. M. C. 118; 10 L. T. (N. S.) 504; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 771; 16 C. B. (N. s.) 209. Com

mented upon and explained by Board` of Works, Wandsworth District, v. Hall, and followed in Simpson v. Smith, L. R. 6 C. P. 87; 24 L. T.

100.

(4) Bauman v. St. Pancras, L. R. 2 Q. B. 528; 36 L. J. M. C. 127; 8 B. & S. 446.

ties of the town of Brighton had not proceeded to that ex- Line of tremity. buildings.

It appeared that after the porch had been commenced the town council objected, and Mr. Nicholson wrote a very proper letter repudiating any desire to set that body at defiance, and expressing a hope that their consent would be given. The town council insisted on the porch being removed, and preferred this indictment at the last assizes for the purpose of enforcing its removal. In cross-examination it was insinuated that a member of the town council was a builder, that he had been in negociation for the alterations at Mr. Nicholson's which some other builder was ultimately employed to effect, and that disappointment at losing the contract caused him to be very active in promoting the subsequent opposition. It was proved that this house was the freehold property of Mr. Nicholson, and that the porch of an adjoining house belonging to Lady Abinger projected more than three feet beyond the porch of No. 35, Oriental Place.

At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Serjeant Parry submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. Mr. Nicholson had not built beyond his own freehold, and the porch was neither an addition nor a part of the house. It was merely a reasonable accessory to the house, and it was said the next street was full of porches.

Mr. Justice Willes said he supposed it was an important question for the town council of Brighton, as they had proceeded by indictment, but all his sympathies were with Mr. Nicholson, because if it had been his house the first thing which he should have done would have been to build a porch. His Lordship (in summing up to the jury) said he did not feel at all sure that Mr. Nicholson had been guilty of any breach of this Act of Parliament, and although he did not in the least wish to pass a censure on the town council, he could not allow Mr. Nicholson to be found guilty for the mere purpose of getting a difficult question of law discussed and settled. After consulting Channell, B. (having left the court for that purpose), he said that he concurred with him that the erection of a porch of this particular description was not such an infringement of the Act as would support the indictment. Under his direction they would say that Mr. Nicholson was not gutlty. The jury returned a verdict accordingly. (1)

The Municipal Corporation Mortgages, &c. Act, 1860 (ante, Application page 149), makes provision for the application of surplus of surplus borough funds in the improvement of the borough by enlargeborough fund. 23 Vict. c. 16 ment of streets and otherwise.

Except in the case of public buildings, all doors and gates opening upon any street, put up after the adoption of the Act in the district, are to be made so as to open inwards; and if

(1) Reg. v. Nicholson, 41 L. T. 657.

S. 12.

Doors and gates on

streets.

10 & II Vict.

they be not so made, the Board may cause them to be altered after eight days' notice, and recover the expenses as damages in addition to a penalty not exceeding 40s. They may also alter existing doors or gates so that no part when open shall project over a public way. Entrances to vaults or cellars from the pavement are to have proper coverings made and kept in repair by the occupier in such manner as the Board may direct; Openings to failing in which, the occupier is to be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5.

c. 34, s. 71. When they may be

altered.

Ib. s. 72.

cellars, etc.

10 & II Vict.

C. 34, S. 73.

Waterspouts.

Ib. s. 74.

Byelaws as to

new streets. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 34.

21 & 22 Vict.

c. 98, s. 45.

10 & 11 Vict. c. 34, s. 64. Ib. s. 65.

Watching and
Lighting Act

to be super-
seded.

21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 46.

The occupier of every house or building, after seven days' notice from the Board, is also to put up and keep in good condition waterspouts for conveying the water from the roof, so that it shall not fall on persons in the street, or on the footpath, subject to a penalty not exceeding 40s. for every day of making default.

Otherwise, as to new streets, the Local Board may make byelaws with respect to their level, width, and construction, and the provisions for the sewerage of such streets. A form of byelaws for this purpose, may be obtained from the publishers of this work.

§ 4. NAMING STREETS AND NUMBERING HOUSES.

Further, the Local Board are to cause the houses in the several streets within the district to be numbered, and the streets to be named; persons destroying or defacing the numbers or names are liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s. for each offence; the numbers are also to be renewed by the occupiers; and if they fail to renew them after notice, they are liable to a like penalty, not exceeding 40s., and the cost incurred by the Board in renewing the numbers is recoverable as damages.

§ 5. LIGHTING STREETS.

In any district where the Public Health Act, 1848, is in force, or where the Local Government Act is adopted, and in which the Lighting and Watching Act, 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 90, has been adopted, that Act is superseded by the Local Government Act, and all lamps, lamp-posts, gas-pipes, fire-engines, hose, and other property vested under the Act in the inspectors for the time being, in all districts under the Public Health Act, 1848, and elsewhere upon the adoption of the Local Government Act, vest in the Local Board.

Upon this provision a question has arisen as to sums uncollected for Lighting Rates, where the Lighting Act, 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 90, is superseded by the Local Government Act being adopted; and also as to the recovery of sums in overseers' hands, and whether the word "property" in the 46th section of the Local Government Act gives power to require over

seers who
may have a balance of Lighting Rate in hand to pay
the same over to the Local Board. It is understood that the
authorities at the Local Government Act office say: "It is
considered that balance in hands of overseers should be paid
over to the Local Board, which, under the provisions of the
46th section of the Local Government Act, 1858, supersedes
the authorities under the Lighting and Watching Act."

The Act, however, is by no means explicit on the point; and if the overseers should decline to collect the arrears of rates, or to pay over any money in their hands to the Local Board, it is difficult to see in which way they could be compelled to do so. On the subject of the transfer of the duty of lighting a public thoroughfare, as a bridge on which tolls are taken, see Vauxhall Bridge Co. v. Lambeth. (1)

The Local Boards may contract, for any period not exceeding Contracts for three years at any one time, with any company or person for lighting. the supply of gas or oil, or other means of lighting the streets, 12 & 13 Vict. roads, and other open places, markets, or public buildings c. 94, s. 8. within their districts; they may also provide such lamps, lampposts, and other materials and apparatus as they may think necessary for lighting such places. The expenses they may thereby incur are to be defrayed out of the general district

rates.

The Local Board, however, cannot fix gas-lamps to houses in the district without the consent of the owners of such houses. (2)

Where a gas company consented to light with gas certain streets at specified rates of payment, and the vestry of the parish covenanted that if the company "did well and sufficiently light the said lamps with gas, and perform and keep all their covenants, they (the vestry) would pay for every lamp at and by the rate of £4 10s. per annum," and to an action to recover the price of a large quantity of gas so supplied by the company, the vestry pleaded various pleas; it was held that the covenants on the part of the company were several and independent covenants, and that the performance of the several matters set forth in the pleas was not a condition precedent to the right of the company to recover by action, on the covenant of the vestry. (3)

Where, under a Local Act, a summary remedy was provided Injury to against a person accidentally damaging a lamp and pillar lamps. attached thereto set up by any person or persons at his or their private expense, or which belonged to the company supplying the gas, it was held that the Act applied to a lamp and pillar set up by a corporation, although the gas was provided by contract between a company and the corporation. (4)

(1) 31 L. J. Q. B. 252.

(2) Meck v. Langdon, 37 L. T. 181.

(3) London Gas Light Company v. Chelsea, 2 L. T. (N. S.) 217. (4) Hereford (Mayor of) v. Moreton, 15 L. T. (N. s.) 187.

« ElőzőTovább »